Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ulises Israel Cuadros NAVARRETE, also known as Ulises Cuadros Navarrete, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-03
Citations: 456 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 11-2428
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ulises Israel Cuadros NAVARRETE, also known as Ulises Cuadros Navarrete, Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ulises Israel Cuadros NAVARRETE, also known as Ulises Cuadros Navarrete, Appellant.
No. 11-2428.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2012.
Filed: April 3, 2012.
Jeffrey Marc Bryan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
Jennifer Marie Macaulay, Macaulay Law Offices, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.
Ulises Israel Cuadros Navarrete, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Ulises Israel Cuadros Navarrete pled guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 72 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel moves 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).
Having carefully reviewed the record before us, we reject counsel's argument that the sentence is unreasonable: the district court committed no significant procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account totality of circumstances; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness). 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 nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.