Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03076/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Silva
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3076

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Alfredo Silva, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 24, 2006

Filed: July 27, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alfredo Silva appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon his guilty

plea to reentering the United States illegally after having been deported following a

conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). 

Appellate Case: 05-3076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071747
-2-

Counsel argues the sentence is unreasonable because of several mitigating

factors which call for a sentence below the 41-month prison sentence imposed by the

district court. We disagree. First, the district court discussed Silva’s criminal history

and the need to provide adequate deterrence. Both of these factors are listed in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) as relevant sentencing considerations, and they support the

reasonableness of the district court’s sentence. See United States v. Long Soldier, 431

F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is whether district court considered

§ 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads to

conclusion that they support reasonableness of sentencing decision).

Second, the sentence was within the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, and

Silva has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United

States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005). Silva argues that he should

be granted leniency based on the disadvantages he may suffer in prison as an illegal

alien, and based on sentencing disparities for illegal-reentry cases within different

judicial districts. He did not raise these matters to the district court at sentencing, and

in any event, they do not make his sentence unreasonable. See United States v.

Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentencing disparity resulting from

fact that “fast-track” programs were available for those convicted of immigration

offenses in certain judicial districts, but not to defendant, did not render his sentence

unreasonable); cf. United States v. Cardosa-Rodriguez, 241 F.3d 613, 613-614 (8th

Cir. 2001) (deportable aliens’ ineligibility for Bureau of Prisons benefits does not

provide basis for downward departure in illegal-reentry cases). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071747