United States v. Juan Alamo-Santellane

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Diana E. Murphy and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4078998-2] motion to withdraw subject to counsel informing the appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. [4132991] [13-2906]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2906
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Francisco Alamo-Santellanes, also known as Paco, also known as Jose
Rusben Alamo-Santellanes
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: March 7, 2014
Filed: March 13, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Juan Alamo-Santellanes directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district
court after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw,
1

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 13-2906

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/13/2014 Entry ID: 4132991

and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that
Alamo-Santellanes’s statutory-minimum prison term is substantively unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that Alamo-Santellanes’s challenge to his
sentence fails because the district court lacked authority to impose a sentence below
the statutory minimum. See United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam) (district courts lack authority to reduce sentences below
congressionally-mandated statutory minimums); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d
930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not
relate to statutorily imposed sentences). Having reviewed the record independently
in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous
issues. Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel
informing Alamo-Santellanes about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a
petition for certiorari. The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 13-2906

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/13/2014 Entry ID: 4132991