Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge TIAZAN-SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-04
Citations: 486 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 12-1973
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge TIAZAN-SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 618–618

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge TIAZAN-SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-1973.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 4, 2012.
Filed: Sept. 4, 2012.
Ian A. Lewis, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Gary K. Milligan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jorge Tiazan-Santiago pleaded guilty to unlawfully entering the United States after having been twice deported, and following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he argues that the sentence is unreasonable, because 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) prohibits sentences greater than necessary to sufficiently comply with the purposes of the statutory sentencing factors.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 24-month sentence, which falls at the very bottom of the uncontested advisory Guidelines range: we give the sentence a presumption of reasonableness, and counsel suggests nothing to rebut the presumption. See United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, (8th Cir.2012); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 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.
. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.