United States v. Jorge Tiazan-Santiago, No. 12-1973 (8th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1973 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jorge Tiazan-Santiago lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: September 4, 2012 Filed: September 4, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jorge Tiazan-Santiago pleaded guilty to unlawfully entering the United States after having been twice deported, and following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court1 sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the sentence is unreasonable, because 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) prohibits sentences greater than necessary to sufficiently comply with the purposes of the statutory sentencing factors. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 24-month sentence, which falls at the very bottom of the uncontested advisory Guidelines range: we give the sentence a presumption of reasonableness, and counsel suggests nothing to rebut the presumption. See United States v. Franik, 2012 WL 3155971, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.