United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3164

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Javier Hurtado-Amezquita,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

___________________________

No. 13-3165

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Javier Hurtado-Amezquita, also known as Francisco Javier Hurtado-Amezquita,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

___________________________

No. 13-3166

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.

Javier Hurtado-Amezquita, also known as Francisco Javier Hurtado-Amezquita,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: April 7, 2014

Filed: April 24, 2014

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In these direct criminal appeals, Javier Hurtado-Amezquita challenges the

sentences the district court imposed after he pled guilty to an immigration offense 1

and admitted that he had violated the conditions of two terms of supervised release

as a result of the immigration offense. Hurtado-Amezquita’s counsel has moved to

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

arguing (1) that Hurtado-Amezquita’s double jeopardy rights were violated because

a prior drug-felony conviction was used to enhance his advisory Guidelines

imprisonment range for the immigration offense, and (2) that his sentences were

substantively unreasonable. 

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, now retired.

-2-
First, assuming that the double jeopardy argument was adequately preserved

in the district court, we conclude that it lacks merit. See United States v. Bates, 77

F.3d 1101, 1106 (8th Cir. 1996) (describing as “well-settled” principle that use of

defendant’s prior felony convictions to establish his status as convicted felon and to

enhance his sentence did not constitute second conviction or punishment for double

jeopardy purposes). Second, upon careful review, we conclude that the district court

did not impose any substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (review of sentence includes

considering substantive reasonableness of sentence under totality of circumstances;

where sentence falls within Guidelines range, appeals court may, but is not required

to, apply presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d

910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (appeals court reviews district court’s revocation

sentencing decisions using same standards applied to initial sentencing decisions). 

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the

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

informing Hurtado-Amezquita about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a

petition for certiorari.

______________________________

-3-