Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03180/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Cesar Ivan Verdinez-Garcia
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3180

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Cesar Ivan Verdinez-Garcia, also *

known as Ivan Garcia, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Cesar Verdinez, also known as Caesar *

Verdines, also known as Cesar *

Verdines, also known as Caezar *

Verdinez, also known as Ivan Caesar *

Verdines, also known as Ivan Caesar *

Verdinez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2005

Filed: June 9, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-3180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Entry ID: 1913527
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-

Cesar Ivan Verdinez-Garcia (“Verdinez”) appeals the judgment the district

court1

 entered after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and

filed an amended brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the

sentence imposed was unreasonable because the district court did not adequately

consider that Verdinez reentered this country to see his terminally ill father. Verdinez

has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that he is not guilty and that his plea was

coerced, and he has asked for appointment of new counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an

unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 764-67 (2005)

(appellate courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness); United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing standard of

review). There is no dispute that the court correctly determined the Guidelines

sentencing range, and although the court said little about the sentence it imposed,

there is no indication in the record that the court failed to consider the circumstances

of Verdinez’s reentry–which he brought to the court’s attention in the presentence

report and at sentencing–when it sentenced him within the Guidelines range. See

Haack, 403 F.3d at 1002-04 (sentencing court must first determine appropriate

Guidelines range; court must then consider all other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to

determine whether to impose Guidelines or non-Guidelines sentence; abuse of

discretion may occur when court fails to consider relevant factor that should have

received significant weight).

Verdinez’s pro se arguments also fail. During thorough questioning at the

change-of-plea hearing, Verdinez admitted the factual basis for his offense and

affirmed that he was pleading guilty voluntarily. See United States v. Martinez-Cruz,

Appellate Case: 04-3180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Entry ID: 1913527
-3-

186 F.3d 1102, 1104 (8th Cir. 1999) (to be constitutionally valid, guilty plea must be

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th

Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption

of verity).

Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, we deny Verdinez’s motion for appointment of new counsel, and we affirm

the judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3180 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Entry ID: 1913527