United States v. Jose Melchor-Rueda


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Michael J. Melloy and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3985821-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Angela Lorene Pitts. [4039788] [12-3390]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3390 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jose Clemente Melchor-Rueda, also known as Francisco Ferniza-Rueda lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: May 17, 2013 Filed: May 29, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jose Melchor-Rueda directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to an illegal re-entry offense, in violation 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 12-3390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Entry ID: 4039788 of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). 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 substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-3390 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Entry ID: 4039788

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?