Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03774/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03774-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Sandoval-Velasco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3774

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jose Sandoval-Velasco, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2006

Filed: December 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Jose Sandoval-Velasco was sentenced to 30 months in prison and 3 years

of supervised release for immigration offenses, he violated his supervised release by

again illegally reentering the United States after deportation. The district court1

revoked supervised release and imposed a new sentence of 24 months in prison, to run

consecutively to the 37-month sentence imposed for the new illegal-reentry

conviction. Sandoval-Velasco appeals his revocation sentence, and we affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-3774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2006 Entry ID: 3260980
-2-

Since the revocation sentence was within the advisory guideline

recommendations and the district court considered appropriate factors in imposing it,

see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), we conclude that Sandoval-Velasco’s sentence

is not unreasonable, see United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005)

(per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance

with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); United States v. Franklin, 397

F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (24-month revocation sentence, where Guidelines

recommended 8-14 months, was not abuse of discretion where transcript showed court

was aware of defendant’s multiple violations of supervised-release conditions and of

Guidelines range and statutory maximum). 

We also deny Sandoval-Velasco’s pro se motion in which he raises matters that

are not properly before us at this time, including his request for briefing on how

Booker might impact his 37-month prison sentence on the new illegal-reentry offense.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2006 Entry ID: 3260980