Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02040/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gabino Nuno-Alvarez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2040

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Gabino Nuno-Alvarez, also known as *

Gavino Nuno-Alvarez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 30, 2006

Filed: June 5, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gabino Nuno-Alvarez (Nuno-Alvarez) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute

50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846 (Count 1); and possessing with the intent to distribute

50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (Count 3). The district court1

 sentenced Nuno-Alvarez to

concurrent sentences of 87 months in prison and 4 years of supervised release. On

Appellate Case: 05-2040 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2006 Entry ID: 2052044
-2-

appeal, Nuno-Alvarez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), Nuno-Alvarez asserts the district court should have granted a downward

variance from the advisory Guidelines range due to Nuno-Alvarez’s (1) status as a

deportable alien which makes him ineligible for a period of home confinement toward

the end of his term of imprisonment, to earn time off through a drug treatment

program, and to serve any of his sentence in a minimum security facility; (2) selfincriminating cooperation with law enforcement; and (3) inevitable deportation and

relocation of his family to Mexico.

We review Nuno-Alvarez’s post-Booker sentence for reasonableness. When,

as here, the district court has correctly determined the Guidelines range, we review the

resulting sentence for reasonableness. See United States v. Claiborne, 439 F.3d 479,

481 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Dalton, 404 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir.

2005) (reasonableness standard of review mandated by Booker is equated to abuse-ofdiscretion standard of review).

We hold Nuno-Alvarez’s sentence was not unreasonable. First, the sentence

was at the bottom of the properly calculated Guidelines range. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of

reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). The presumption has not been

and could not be rebutted because nothing in the record indicates the district court

failed to consider a relevant factor, considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or

made a clear error of judgment in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See

United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006) (setting forth

requirements to rebut presumption). The district court considered each of the

section 3553(a) factors and in its discretion, determined Nuno-Alvarez’s status as a

deportable alien, his cooperation with authorities, and his familial obligations did not

warrant a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range. See United States

Appellate Case: 05-2040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2006 Entry ID: 2052044
-3-

v. Dieken, 432 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting defendant’s assertion the

district court failed to consider adequately his personal history and troubled family

life, holding sentence was reasonable as court considered each section 3553(a) factor

and determined defendant’s claims did not “necessitate[] deviation from the suggested

guidelines sentence”); United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 34 (2d Cir. 2006)

(concluding although the sentencing court had the power to reduce the sentence under

section 3553(a) based on defendant’s cooperation, “the court was not obliged to

provide any such benefit”); United States v. Laufle, 433 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2006)

(holding although different sentencing court may have given more weight to

defendant’s cooperation, disagreement with the court’s assessment does not warrant

reversal since “[o]ur task is confined to determining whether the district court

considered the appropriate range of factors and arrived at a reasonable sentence”);

United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152, 1161 (10th Cir. 2006) (concluding the

sentencing court was not obligated to apply a non-Guidelines sentence based on

defendant’s personal history and familial obligations); cf. United States v. Sebastian,

436 F.3d 913, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (ruling the district court considered all section

3553(a) factors and sentenced accordingly; sentencing disparity due to the availability

of “fast-track” programs for convicted immigration offenders in certain judicial

districts, but not to defendant, did not render his sentence unreasonable).

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

80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2040 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2006 Entry ID: 2052044