United States v. Manuel Camarillo
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4357912-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Barry D. Neal. [4434436] [15-3876]
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3876
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Manuel Patrick Camarillo, also known as Sick
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: July 22, 2016
Filed: August 5, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Manuel Camarillo directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and gun
charges, and the district court1 sentenced him to a within-Guidelines-range prison
1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
Appellate Case: 15-3876
Page: 1
Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434436
term for the drug offenses, and a statutory-minimum consecutive prison term for the
gun offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
We conclude that Camarillo’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, see
Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997), and that the district court
committed no sentencing error, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77
(8th Cir. 2012). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-
Appellate Case: 15-3876
Page: 2
Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434436
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?