Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Victor M. ALVARO-REYES, also known as Cruz De Luna, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-02
Citations: 163 F. App'x 449
Docket Number: No. 05-1032
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Victor M. ALVARO-REYES, also known as Cruz De Luna, Appellant.
Judges: Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Victor M. ALVARO-REYES, also known as Cruz De Luna, Appellant.
No. 05-1032.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 20, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 2, 2006.
Bruce Wellesley Gillan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John J. Velasquez, Velasquez Law Offices, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.
Victor M. Avaro-Reyes, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Victor Avaro-Reyes appeals the 87-month sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that Avaro-Reyes's sentence is excessive and unreasonable.
To the extent counsel is raising an Eighth Amendment challenge to AvaroReyes's sentence, we conclude that the argument fails. See United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir.2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to crime); cf. id. at 676, 679-80 (imposition of mandatory life sentence for conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine was not cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment); United States v. Jones, 2 F.3d 827, 828-29 (8th Cir.1993) (finding 151-month sentence for conspiring to distribute phencyclidine not "excessive").
We further find that Avaro-Reyes's sentence — which was imposed at the bottom of the Guidelines range, and well below the mandatory statutory minimum — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 765-67, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (appellate courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and de fendant must rebut presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, — L.Ed.2d - (2005).
Having reviewed the record independently 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 affirm.
. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.