United States v. Juan Ortega-Bustamante

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Raymond W. Gruender and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4137636-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. John P. Messina. [4193266] [14-1462]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1462
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Ortega-Bustamante
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City
____________
Submitted: September 2, 2014
Filed: September 5, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Juan Ortega-Bustamante directly appeals the concurrent sentences the district
court imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following an
1

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-1462

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Entry ID: 4193266

aggravated-felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), and
conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, 851. His counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing the sentences are unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we note that the sentence on the drug charge is the
statutory minimum, and thus is not reviewable for reasonableness, see 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); and we conclude that the
illegal-reentry sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision).
Accordingly, we affirm.
As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to
withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994
Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We
therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to
counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1462

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Entry ID: 4193266