United States v. Rigoberto Chavez-Cueva


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, PASCO M. BOWMAN and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3781959-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Janet Spencer for Appellant Mr.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

Download PDF
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 * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: July 14, 2011 Filed: July 26, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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

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?