Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Francisco GOMEZ, also known as Francisco Mateo-Gomez, also known as Mario Hernandez, also known as Francisco Mateo, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-23
Citations: 452 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 11-2765
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Francisco GOMEZ, also known as Francisco Mateo-Gomez, also known as Mario Hernandez, also known as Francisco Mateo, Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Francisco GOMEZ, also known as Francisco Mateo-Gomez, also known as Mario Hernandez, also known as Francisco Mateo, Appellant.
No. 11-2765.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2012.
Filed: Feb. 23, 2012.
Dustin S. Roberts, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
Bruce Eddy, Assistant, Angela Lorene Pitts, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Appellant.
Francisco Gomez, Bentonville, AR, pro se.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Francisco Gomez pleaded guilty to illegally re-entering the United States after being deported following the commission of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Gomez to serve 46 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay a $3,000 fine. Gomez then filed this appeal, in which his counsel has moved to withdraw and has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the prison sentence. We apply a presumption of reasonableness to the prison sentence, which falls at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, and we conclude that Gomez has failed to rebut that presumption. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Accordingly, the substantive-reasonableness challenge fails.
We have also reviewed the record for nonfrivolous issues, as required under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no such issues on this record. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.