Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02902/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02902-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Castillo-Vargas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2902

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Ruben Castillo-Vargas, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2007

 Filed: September 17, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ruben Castillo-Vargas (Vargas) appeals the 70-month prison sentence the

district court1

 imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal reentry after having been

deported following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

and (b)(2). Vargas’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the sentence and

the denial of a downward departure.

Appellate Case: 06-2902 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Entry ID: 3352205
-2-

We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. The district court considered

Vargas’s Guidelines imprisonment range, along with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

and Vargas’s arguments for a departure or a variance, in determining the sentence.

Nothing in the record suggests the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that

should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors

committed a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-

62 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review); United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed

for abuse of discretion; defining ways in which abuse of discretion may occur). We

also conclude that any sentence disparity arising from the unavailability of an earlydisposition program in the Southern District of Iowa does not make an otherwise

reasonable sentence unreasonable, see United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913,

915-16 (8th Cir. 2006), and that the district court’s discretionary denial of Vargas’s

downward-departure motion is unreviewable, see United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d

1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find

no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we

affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2902 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Entry ID: 3352205