Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01480/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01480-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernesto Lara-Valenzuela
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1480

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Ernesto Lara-Valenzuela, also known *

as Manuel Hurtado-Millan, also known *

as Negro, also known as Mario * [UNPUBLISHED]

Martinez, also known as Manuel *

Hurtado, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 3, 2006

Filed: January 10, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto Lara-Valenzuela challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 or more grams of a mixture

containing methamphetamine, and cocaine (amount unspecified), in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

Appellate Case: 05-1480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2006 Entry ID: 1995186
-2-

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that LaraValenzuela’s sentence is unreasonable. 

The sentence is not unreasonable. The district court gave Lara-Valenzuela a

sentence within the applicable advisory Guidelines range, stated that it had considered

the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and heard argument from counsel

regarding Lara-Valenzuela’s criminal history and drug addiction. See United States

v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005) (Guidelines sentence based on

§ 3553(a) factors is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, 2005 WL 3067440 (U.S.

Dec. 12, 2005) (No. 05-7506).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2006 Entry ID: 1995186