Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02168/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Merced Lozano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2168

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

John Merced Lozano, also known as *

Juan Merced Lozano, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2008

 Filed: March 3, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Merced Lozano pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846 (Count 1), being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (Count 2), and possessing firearms

in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)

(Count 3); and to a forfeiture count. The district court1

 imposed concurrent prison

Appellate Case: 06-2168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2008 Entry ID: 3408507
-2-

terms of 262 months on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 2, and a consecutive term

of 60 months on Count 3, with the total of 322 months to run consecutively to

Lozano’s undischarged state prison term. The court also imposed a total of 5 years

of supervised release. On appeal, Lozano’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw and arguing that Lozano’s

sentence is unreasonable and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Lozano has

filed a motion for appointment of new counsel and a pro se brief. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

We conclude that Lozano’s sentence, which was at the bottom of the advisory

Guidelines range, is not unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,

2462 (2007); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005). The

district court expressly considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and

nothing in the record suggests that the court misapplied those factors. See United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005). We also find no basis to conclude

that Lozano’s sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. See United States

v. Weis, 487 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th Cir. 2007) (“It is rare for a term of years within the

authorized statutory range to violate the Eighth Amendment.”). We note that any

ineffective-assistance claim Lozano may have should be pursued in a proceeding

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.

2003).

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment, we deny Lozano’s motion for counsel, and we grant

counsel’s request to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the

procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2008 Entry ID: 3408507