Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerardo VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Raul Gonzales Munoz, also known as Jose R. Gerero, also known as Raul Acosta-Munoz, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-12
Citations: 11 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 00-2805
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerardo VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Raul Gonzales Munoz, also known as Jose R. Gerero, also known as Raul Acosta-Munoz, Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerardo VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Raul Gonzales Munoz, also known as Jose R. Gerero, also known as Raul Acosta-Munoz, Appellant.
No. 00-2805.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 6, 2001.
Filed April 12, 2001.
Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gerardo Vasquez-Rodriguez, a Mexican citizen, appeals the sentence of 66 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release imposed on him by the district court after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). On appeal, counsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), filing a brief in which she argued that the court erred by not granting a more substantial downward departure.
We conclude Mr. Vasquez-Rodriguez's sentence is unreviewable. See United States v. Arps, 197 F.3d 1202, 1203 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of downward departure is unreviewable); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal); United States v. Dutches 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993) (extent of downward departure is unreviewable, regardless of court's reasons for retraining from departing further).
Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and we affirm.
. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.