Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03097/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerardo Ruiz-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3097

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Gerardo Ruiz-Martinez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 27, 2006

Filed: November 1, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerardo Ruiz-Martinez appeals the 84-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having

been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His counsel has moved

to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel argues that the court violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing an

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (16-level enhancement if defendant

Appellate Case: 05-3097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2006 Entry ID: 2105514
-2-

previously was deported after conviction for crime of violence), based on judge-found

facts as to the nature of his prior convictions. We have already rejected a similar Sixth

Amendment challenge. See United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810-11

(8th Cir. 2005). 

Counsel also argues that Ruiz-Martinez’s sentence was unreasonable. We

conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly considered

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in sentencing Ruiz-Martinez within the Guidelines

range, and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is

reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005) (appellate

courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness; district courts must

consult Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing, along with other

§ 3553(a) factors); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence

within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on

defendant to rebut that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United

States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption of

reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that

should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or

irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of

judgment in weighing them).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and

we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2006 Entry ID: 2105514