United States v. Antonio Alfaro


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, KERMIT E. BYE and STEVEN M. COLLOTON (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3793800-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Bruce Eddy. [3846554] [11-2157]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2157 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Antonio Alfaro, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 1, 2011 Filed: November 4, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Alfaro pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 97 months in prison and 4 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 11-2157 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2011 Entry ID: 3846554 We conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, explained why it chose not to vary downward, and imposed a sentence at the low end of the undisputed Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-2157 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2011 Entry ID: 3846554

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?