Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03610/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Jesus Castillo-Gudino
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3610

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jose Jesus Castillo-Gudino, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2007

Filed: November 30, 2007 

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Castillo-Gudino (Castillo-Gudino) appeals the 27-month prison sentence

the district court1

 imposed following Castillo-Gudino’s guilty plea to a charge of reentering the United States after being deported following a felony conviction for

operating a vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).

Castillo-Gudino’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is greater than necessary,

because (1) the sentence was imposed in addition to the revocation sentence CastilloAppellate Case: 06-3610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2007 Entry ID: 3377569
-2-

Gudino received when his supervised release on a prior conviction for illegal re-entry

was revoked; (2) Castillo-Gudino has struggled with alcoholism; and (3) the time

Castillo-Gudino spent in detention with immigration authorities will not be credited

toward his sentence.

We conclude the sentence, imposed within the uncontested Guidelines range,

is not unreasonable: nothing in the record suggests the court overlooked a significant

factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of

judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.

2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness for within

Guidelines range sentences); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.

2005) (stating the factors used to review a sentence for reasonableness); see also

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) & cmt. n.3(C) (in relevant part, addressing sentencing when the

defendant commits the instant offense while on supervised release for another

offense).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel leave to

withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2007 Entry ID: 3377569