Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lucio Adonay MELENDEZ, also known as Lucio Adona Melendez-Villatoro, also known as Jucio Adonay Melendez, also known as Steven Sanchez, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-16
Citations: 412 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 10-3616
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lucio Adonay MELENDEZ, also known as Lucio Adona Melendez-Villatoro, also known as Jucio Adonay Melendez, also known as Steven Sanchez, Appellant.
Judges: Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lucio Adonay MELENDEZ, also known as Lucio Adona Melendez-Villatoro, also known as Jucio Adonay Melendez, also known as Steven Sanchez, Appellant.
No. 10-3616.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2011.
Filed: March 16, 2011.
Nicholas Whitney Chase, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fargo, ND, for Appellee.
Richard J. Henderson, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fargo, ND, for Appellant.
Lucio Adonay Melendez, Sandstone, MN, pro se.
Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lucio Adonay Melendez appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Counsel has moved 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).
Contrary to counsel's arguments, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Melendez, 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) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.