Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jesus Francisco RAMIREZ-GARCIA, also known as Francisco Ramirez, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-09
Citations: 409 F. App'x 44
Docket Number: No. 10-2578
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jesus Francisco RAMIREZ-GARCIA, also known as Francisco Ramirez, Appellant.
Judges: Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 44–45

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jesus Francisco RAMIREZ-GARCIA, also known as Francisco Ramirez, Appellant.
No. 10-2578.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 4, 2011.
Filed: Feb. 9, 2011.
Richard D. Westphal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Appellee.
John P. Messina, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.
Jesus Francisco Ramirez-Garcia, Muscatine, IA, pro se.
Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jesus Francisco Ramirez-Garcia appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Counsel seeks 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), arguing that the sen tence is unreasonable. Ramirez-Garcia has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
First, we decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998) (ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion). Further, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Ramirez-Garcia, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.