Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-03135/USCOURTS-ca8-19-03135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Jesus Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 19-3135

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alejandro Jesus Rodriguez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

Submitted: May 8, 2020

Filed: May 13, 2020

[Unpublished] 

____________

 

Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and received a withinGuidelines-range sentence of 235 months in prison. In an Anders brief, Rodriguez’s 

counsel requests permission to withdraw and suggests that the sentence is 

Appellate Case: 19-3135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Entry ID: 4912712
- 2 -

substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In a pro

se brief, Rodriguez argues that his sentence is unfair, primarily because another 

unnamed offender received a lower sentence than he did. 

We conclude that Rodriguez’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See 

United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a withinGuidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that 

the district court1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of 

judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en 

banc). 

Rodriguez’s pro se arguments also have no merit. He has not established a 

sentencing disparity, see United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) 

(requiring the defendant to show a comparator with a similar record who engaged in 

similar conduct), and to the extent he argues that he received ineffective assistance 

of counsel during plea negotiations, we will not consider this issue now. See United 

States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that 

ineffective-assistance-of-plea-counsel claims “are usually best litigated in collateral 

proceedings”).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988), and conclude that there are no other non-frivolous issues 

for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to 

withdraw.

______________________________

1

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

Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 19-3135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Entry ID: 4912712