Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Homero MENDOZA-GOMEZ, also known as Marcos, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-30
Citations: 329 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 07-3880
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Homero MENDOZA-GOMEZ, also known as Marcos, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Homero MENDOZA-GOMEZ, also known as Marcos, Appellant.
No. 07-3880.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2009.
Filed: July 30, 2009.
Jeffrey Marc Bryan, Steven L. Schleicher, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrea K George, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.
Homero Mendoza-Gomez California City, CA, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Homero Mendoza-Gomez appeals the 108-month prison sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which she questions the sentence's reasonableness. We affirm.
The sentence is presumptively reasonable because it falls within the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, and Mendoza-Gomez has not rebutted the presumption. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (approving presumption); United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1263, 170 L.Ed.2d 111 (2008); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.2005) (appeals court reviews sentence for abuse of discretion, i.e., unreasonableness). Specifically, we see no indication in the record that the district court based the sentence on an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See Haack, 403 F.3d at 1003-04 (listing circumstances in which abuse of discretion may occur). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivo-lous issues.
Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw on the condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.
. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.