United States v. Juan Alamo-Santellane


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Diana E. Murphy and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4078998-2] motion to withdraw subject to counsel informing the appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for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

Download PDF
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District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: March 7, 2014 Filed: March 13, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.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

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?