Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03605/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03605-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Garcia-Orosco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3605

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Miguel Garcia-Orosco, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2007

Filed: November 1, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Miguel Garcia-Orosco pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine (Count 1), which subjected him to a 10-year minimum prison term,

see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drugtrafficking crime (Count 7), which subjected him to a mandatory consecutive 5-year

minimum prison term, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 2. At sentencing, the district

court1

 determined an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 168-210 months for

Count 1, granted the government’s motion for a substantial-assistance reduction, and

Appellate Case: 06-3605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2007 Entry ID: 3368143
-2-

sentenced Garcia-Orosco to consecutive prison terms of 80 months on Count 1 and

60 months on Count 7. On appeal, Garcia-Orosco’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the 140-month sentence is

unreasonable because the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors indicate a lesser sentence would

suffice to meet sentencing goals. 

We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005) (standard of review); United States v. Berni, 439

F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (while extent of substantial-assistance

departure remains unreviewable after Booker, sentence is still subject to overall

review for reasonableness guided by § 3553(a) factors). Nothing in the record

suggests that the district court considered an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to

consider a relevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate

factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating ways

in which abuse of discretion may occur). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2007 Entry ID: 3368143