Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01991/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01991-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Armando Sanchez-Briones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1991

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jose Armando Sanchez-Briones, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2005

Filed: June 7, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Sanchez-Briones challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1

upon his guilty plea to an illegal-reentry charge. His counsel has filed a brief and

moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and

Sanchez-Briones has moved for leave to file an amended Anders brief to address

issues raised by Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

Appellate Case: 04-1991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912162
-2-

For reversal, counsel argues that a criminal history point assessed because

Sanchez-Briones committed the instant offense within 2 years of his release from

imprisonment in June 2001 was plain error, because the instant offense was not

committed until July 2003, when Sanchez-Briones was found in the United States.

However, illegal reentry is an ongoing offense, beginning on the date of reentry and

not ending until the alien is found in the United States. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1,

comment. (n.5) (additional point is proper if defendant committed any relevant

conduct less than 2 years after release); United States v. Estrada-Quijas, 183 F.3d

758, 761 (8th Cir. 1999) (crime of reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is ongoing offense

that continues until alien is discovered by authorities). Sanchez-Briones admitted at

his plea hearing that he reentered in July 2001, and he did not object to the

presentence report’s statement that he reentered in July 2001 after being released

from imprisonment in June 2001. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A) (district court may

accept any undisputed portion of PSR as finding of fact).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, deny

the motion to file an amended Anders brief, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912162