United States v. Rigoberto Chavez-Cueva

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, PASCO M. BOWMAN and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3781959-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Janet Spencer for Appellant Mr. Rigoberto Chavez-Cuevas. [3811133] [11-1495]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-1495
___________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Rigoberto Chavez-Cuevas,
Appellant.

*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Western
* District of Arkansas.
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
*
___________
Submitted: July 14, 2011
Filed: July 26, 2011
___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Rigoberto Chavez-Cuevas appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance
containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), b(1)(B)(viii),
and 846. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 11-1495

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/26/2011 Entry ID: 3811133

We conclude that the district court did commit any significant procedural error
in sentencing Chavez-Cuevas, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court
first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then
considers substantive reasonableness of the sentence under abuse-of-discretion
standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply
presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Berni, 439 F.3d 990, 992-93 (8th
Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (reviewing sentence involving U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 downward
departure for reasonableness using abuse-of-discretion standard; sentence was
reasonable where court correctly calculated Guidelines range, permissibly applied
§ 5K1.1 departure, and considered resulting adjusted range and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors); 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
(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 11-1495

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/26/2011 Entry ID: 3811133