Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sergio MARTINEZ-SOTO, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-21
Citations: 177 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 05-1704
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sergio MARTINEZ-SOTO, Appellant.
Judges: Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 510–510

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sergio MARTINEZ-SOTO, Appellant.
No. 05-1704.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 21, 2006.
Decided April 21, 2006.
Thomas J. Kangior, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kellie P. Asaka, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.
Sergio Martinez-Soto, Earlimart, CA, pro se.
Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sergio Martinez-Soto pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846; possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and a criminal forfeiture count. The district court imposed consecutive prison terms of 120 months on the drug-conspiracy charge and 60 months on the gun charge, two concurrent terms of 5 years of supervised release, and a forfeiture of $14,100. On appeal, Martinez-Soto'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).
To the extent the Anders brief can be read to challenge the imposition of the statutory mandatory minimum sentences, the argument fails. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003) (only authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief); United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639, 641 (8th Cir.1989) (mandatory minimum sentencing does not violate defendant's constitutional rights). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), for any non-frivolous issues, we find none. Thus, we affirm the district court's judgment, and we also grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.