United States v. Carrera-Marino, No. 05-3464 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. As defendant had more than one criminal history point, he was ineligible for safety-valve relief from the statutory minimum sentence, and his sentence is not unreasonable as the district court had no authority to impose a lower sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-3464 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Ignacio Carrera-Marino, also known as * Judas Lozano, also known as Chivo, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: September 27, 2006 Filed: October 4, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Ignacio Carrera-Marino (Marino) appeals the 120-month prison sentence imposed by the district court1 after Marino pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that Marino believes the sentence is unreasonable. Marino s offense carried a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Because Marino had more than one criminal history point, he was ineligible for safety-valve relief from the statutory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1). Thus, Marino s sentence is not unreasonable because the district court had no authority to impose a lower sentence. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes a motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
