Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marco Antonio CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-13
Citations: 226 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 06-1956
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marco Antonio CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 226
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marco Antonio CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Appellant.
No. 06-1956.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 7, 2007.
Filed: June 13, 2007.
Susan T. Lehr, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.
Marco Antonio Castillo-Ramirez, Lewis-burg, PA, pro se.
Michael David Gooch, Lancaster County Public Defenders Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.
Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marco Castillo-Ramirez appeals the 87-month sentence the district court imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846. Castillo-Ramirez's counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the sentence, which was at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.
We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. In determining the sentence, the district court considered Castillo-Ramirez's Guidelines imprisonment range, along with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review). Moreover, nothing in the record suggests the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; defining ways in which abuse of discretion may occur).
Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.