Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02581/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02581-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Gonzalez-Renteria
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2581

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Francisco Gonzalez-Renteria, also * Southern District of Iowa.

known as Paco, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2010

Filed: April 26, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Gonzalez-Renteria pleaded guilty to misusing a social security

number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); making a false claim of citizenship

to obtain unlawful employment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1015(e); and unlawfully

reentering the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him within the advisory

guideline range to 55 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal,

Appellate Case: 09-2581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Entry ID: 3658164
-2-

his counsel has moved to withdraw and had filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is excessive, and that the district court

abused its discretion in denying Gonzalez-Renteria’s motion for a downward variance.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Gonzalez-Renteria requests to be sent to Mexico as

soon as possible to receive medical attention.

 We conclude that the district court committed no procedural or substantive

error in sentencing Gonzalez-Renteria. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,

461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standards for reviewing sentence). In particular, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for

a downward variance, as the record indicates that the court was well aware of

Gonzalez-Renteria’s relevant medical history and considered all of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(D), (3); United

States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 607 (8th Cir. 2009) (court need not engage in

mechanical recitation of § 3553(a) factors, and need only set forth enough to satisfy

appellate court that it considered parties’ arguments and had reasoned basis for

exercising its own legal decision-making authority).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2581 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Entry ID: 3658164