Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Uriel LIRA-PEREZ, also known as Uriel Lira-Perz, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-28
Citations: 483 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 11-3728
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Uriel LIRA-PEREZ, also known as Uriel Lira-Perz, Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 483
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Uriel LIRA-PEREZ, also known as Uriel Lira-Perz, Appellant.
No. 11-3728.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2012.
Filed: June 28, 2012.
Kenneth P. Elser, Kyle Evan Waters, Matthew J. Wilson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
Naif Samuel Khoury, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellant.
Uriel Lira-Perez, pro se.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After Uriel Lira-Perez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, the district court sentenced him to 108 months in prison and four years of supervised release. On appeal, Lira-Perez's counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking leave to withdraw. Lira-Perez has filed a pro se supplemental brief.
After careful review, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court, which was at the bottom of the Guidelines range, was not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). As to the pro se arguments, the plea-hearing record flatly contradicts Lira-Perez's assertion that the district court failed to advise him of the trial rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty, and we reject as legally unsupported Lira-Perez's contention that the drug-trafficking statutes under which he was charged were rendered unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Finally, after reviewing the record independently 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 leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.