Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03332/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03332-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramon Garcia-Pena
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3332

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Ramon Garcia-Pena, also known as * District of Nebraska.

Loreto Sarabia Garcia, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 2, 2004

Filed: July 28, 2004 

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Garcia-Pena (Garcia) pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and to

possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance

containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), and

also pleaded guilty to forfeiture of certain property. The district court1

 granted the

government’s motion to depart downward from the Guidelines for Garcia’s

Appellate Case: 03-3332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2004 Entry ID: 1793054 
-2-

substantial assistance, and sentenced Garcia to 238 months imprisonment and 5 years

supervised release. 

On appeal, Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, counsel suggests that the

court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence. This argument fails.

At sentencing, Garcia withdrew his objections to the probation officer’s

recommended sentencing enhancements, see United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596, 600

(8th Cir. 1999), and the extent of the court’s downward departure is not reviewable,

see United States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993). Upon careful review of

the record, we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). 

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2004 Entry ID: 1793054