Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan MARTINEZ-CHAVEZ, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-05
Citations: 374 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 09-2415
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan MARTINEZ-CHAVEZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 374
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan MARTINEZ-CHAVEZ, Appellant.
No. 09-2415.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2010.
Filed: May 5, 2010.
Nicole M. Proesch, Special, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellee.
Juan Martinez-Chavez, Corrections Corporation of America, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Matthew Charles McDermott, Belin & Lamson, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Juan Martinez-Chavez challenges the sentence that the District Court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. Martinez-Chavez's counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Upon careful review, we conclude that the District Court committed no procedural error in sentencing Martinez-Chavez and that the court 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) (explaining that in reviewing a sentence, the appellate court first ensures that the district court committed no significant procedural error and then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard; if the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.) (noting that an abuse of discretion may occur when the court fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing them), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 913, 126 S.Ct. 276, 163 L.Ed.2d 246 (2005).
Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.