United States v. Juan Polanco, No. 08-2389 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Argument that the government should have filed a substantial-assistance motion rejected; as the district court lacked discretion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, there is no merit to defendant's argument that his sentence was unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2389 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan C. Polanco, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 18, 2009 Filed: January 14, 2010 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Juan Polanco appeals the mandatory minimum sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 378 (1967), arguing that Polanco s sentence is unreasonable, and that the government should have filed a motion to reduce his sentence based on substantial assistance. 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. We find no merit in Polanco s argument that the government should have filed a substantial-assistance motion. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 1135, 1138 (8th Cir. 2008) (grounds on which district court may review government s refusal to make substantial-assistance motion). Because the court lacked discretion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, we also find no merit in Polanco s argument that the sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for court to depart below statutory minimum sentence is in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or when defendant qualifies under safety-valve provision); 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 ). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
