Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02204/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02204-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aldo Noel Acosta-Isiorda
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1902

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Edgar Arteaga-Montoya, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 05-2204 District Court for the

___________ Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Aldo Noel Acosta-Isiorda, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 5, 2006 

Filed: April 13, 2006 

___________

Appellate Case: 05-2204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2006 Entry ID: 2032311
1

The record indicates that the correct name is Isiordia rather than Isiorda. (Plea

Tr. at 2.)

2

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated direct criminal appeal, Edgar Arteaga-Montoya and

codefendant Aldo Acosta-Isiordia1

 challenge the sentences imposed by the district

court2

 after they pleaded guilty to use of a communications facility to facilitate drug

trafficking, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Both appellants were subject to a

maximum sentence of 48 months imprisonment based upon their pleas. The district

court sentenced Arteaga-Montoya to 48 months imprisonment and one year of

supervised release, and sentenced Acosta-Isiordia to 42 months imprisonment and one

year of supervised release. But for the 48-month statutory maximum triggered by

their pleas, both appellants would have faced a Guidelines imprisonment range of 121-

151 months. On appeal, counsel for both appellants have moved to withdraw and

have filed briefs under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

As for Arteaga-Montoya, our careful review of the record reveals that there are

no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988),

because, among other reasons, we see nothing in the record to rebut the presumption

that Arteaga-Montoya’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220, 261 (2005) (appellate courts review sentences for unreasonableness); United

States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut presumption of

reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a) (where

Appellate Case: 05-2204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2006 Entry ID: 2032311
-3-

statutorily authorized maximum sentence is less than minimum of applicable

Guidelines range, statutory maximum shall be Guidelines sentence). 

As for Acosta-Isiordia, we reject the Anders brief argument that the district

court erred in refusing to grant this appellant a three- rather than two-level reduction

for acceptance of responsibility. Not only would the additional level reduction not

have affected his Guidelines sentence, which was drastically reduced because of the

statutory maximum, but Acosta-Isiordia specifically stipulated in his plea agreement

that he would not receive a third level. See United States v. Early, 77 F.3d 242, 244

(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (defendant who did not challenge plea agreement or seek

to withdraw from it was bound by its stipulations). And as in Arteaga-Montoya’s

case, our review of the record under Penson persuades us that there are no other

nonfrivolous issues. In particular, we note that the sentence imposed is not

unreasonable, because the district court appropriately considered factors such as

Acosta-Isiordia’s peripheral role in the conspiracy, his youth, the court’s wish to avoid

disparate sentences, and Acosta-Isiordia’s lack of criminal history. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1) (court shall consider nature and circumstances of offense and history and

characteristics of defendant); Booker, 543 U.S. at 261. 

Having found no nonfrivolous issues in either case, we affirm both sentences

and convictions, and we grant both counsel leave to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2204 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/13/2006 Entry ID: 2032311