United States v. Juan Garcia-Bautista

Filing 920100625

Opinion

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3484 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan Garcia-Bautista, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 11, 2010 Filed: June 25, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Juan Garcia-Bautista challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable under the facts of this case. We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The sentence imposed was at the bottom of the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50 (2007), and we find no indication that GarciaBautista would be able to rebut the resulting presumption of reasonableness, see United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 2006). Further, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we deny Garcia-Bautista's pending motion for appointment of counsel. ______________________________ -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?