United States v. Francisco Rodriguez-Orozco, No. 09-2241 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Downward varied sentence of 70 months was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2241 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Francisco Rodriguez-Orozco, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: June 23, 2010 Filed: June 25, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After Francisco Rodriguez-Orozco pleaded guilty to drug and immigration offenses, the district court1 varied downward from the applicable Guidelines range and sentenced him to a total of 70 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable because Rodriguez-Orozco should have received the same sentence as a codefendant. After careful review we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable, see United States 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir. 2007); and having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we also find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.2 Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 2 In his pro se notice of appeal, Rodriguez-Orozco complains that counsel did not adequately represent him in this matter. However, generally we do not address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct criminal appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007). -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.
