Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Irenelisa TORRES-RESENDIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-27
Citations: 639 F. App'x 391
Docket Number: No. 15-3326
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Irenelisa TORRES-RESENDIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Irenelisa TORRES-RESENDIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-3326.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2016.
Filed: April 27, 2016.
Brandon T. Carter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mauricio Adonay Herrera, Lowell, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Irenelisa Torres-Resendiz, Bentonville, AR pro se.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Irenelisa Torres-Resendiz directly appeals after she pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced her- to 140 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Her counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the district court's application of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) for Torres-Resendiz's aggravating role in the offense.
The district court did not clearly err in assessing the enhancement. See United States v. Gutierrez, 757 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir.2014) (standard of review). At sentencing, the government presented testimony and other evidence establishing that, for two months, Torres-Resendiz received weekly .or bi-weekly shipments of large quantities of methamphetamine from a supplier, and instructed others to wire the drug proceeds, which showed that she directed large quantities of drugs and drug proceeds; exercised control over others; and acted as a "key link" between supplier and distributor. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment, (n.4) (relevant factors); United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 910, 921 (8th Cir.2010).
Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.