Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03575/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03575-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Erasmo Gonzalez-Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3575

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Erasmo Gonzalez-Gonzalez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 26, 2006

Filed: August 7, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Erasmo Gonzalez-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United

States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). At

sentencing the district court1

 determined a Guidelines imprisonment range of 57-71

months, declined to depart downward from that range, and imposed a sentence of 57

months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence is unreasonable given several bases for departure. 

Appellate Case: 05-3575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075300
-2-

First, Gonzalez-Gonzalez may not assign error based on the district court’s

denial of a downward departure, because the ruling was discretionary and not the

result of a mistaken belief that the court lacked authority to depart. See United States

v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Second, the sentence is not unreasonable merely because of sentencing

differences among judicial districts in illegal-alien cases, or disadvantages GonzalezGonzalez may suffer in prison as an illegal alien. 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). We conclude nothing

in the record rebuts the presumption that this sentence, within the undisputed advisory

Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151

(8th Cir. 2005). 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075300