Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03121/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Garcia-Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3121

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Enrique Garcia-Sanchez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006

Filed: October 17, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Enrique Garcia-Sanchez appeals the 108-month prison sentence the district

court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting a review of the

sentence for reasonableness.

Appellate Case: 05-3121 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2006 Entry ID: 2100014
-2-

We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in sentencing Garcia-Sanchez within the

Guidelines range, and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence

is reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005) (appellate

courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness; district courts must

consult Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing, along with other

§ 3553(a) factors); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence

within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on

defendant to rebut that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United

States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption of

reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that

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

irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of

judgment in weighing them).

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

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and

also grant counsel's motion to withdraw on condition that he show that he has

informed Garcia-Sanchez of the procedures for petitioning the Supreme Court for

certiorari, in compliance with Part V of our plan to implement the Criminal Justice

Act.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2006 Entry ID: 2100014