Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02241/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02241-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Rodriguez-Orozco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2241

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri. 

*

Francisco Rodriguez-Orozco, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 23, 2010

Filed: June 25, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Francisco Rodriguez-Orozco pleaded guilty to drug and immigration

offenses, the district court1

 varied downward from the applicable Guidelines range and

sentenced him to a total of 70 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable because

Rodriguez-Orozco should have received the same sentence as a codefendant. After

careful review we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable, see United States

Appellate Case: 09-2241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2010 Entry ID: 3678054
2

In his pro se notice of appeal, Rodriguez-Orozco complains that counsel did

not adequately represent him in this matter. However, generally we do not address

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct criminal appeal. See United

States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007).

-2-

v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Watson,

480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir. 2007); and having reviewed the record independently

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we also find no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal.2

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2010 Entry ID: 3678054