United States v. Antonio Alfaro
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, KERMIT E. BYE and STEVEN M. COLLOTON (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3793800-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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]
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* [UNPUBLISHED]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?