United States v. Carlos Rodriguez-Padron, No. 16-3706 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. Anders case. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for distributing methamphetamine; no error in allowing impeachment evidence after defendant testified he was unfamiliar with methamphetamine; bottom-of-the-guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3706 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez-Padron lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: June 1, 2017 Filed: June 6, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez-Padron guilty of two counts of distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 97 months in prison, followed by four years of supervised release. On appeal, Rodriguez-Padron’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of the sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. The trial evidence showed that Rodriguez-Padron twice sold an ounce of methamphetamine to a confidential informant, and the transactions were captured on audio and video recordings. See United States v. Garcia, 646 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2011). After Rodriguez-Padron testified that the transactions were not what they appeared to be and that he was unfamiliar with methamphetamine, the district court properly allowed the government to introduce impeachment evidence—with a limiting instruction—in the form of Rodriguez-Padron’s proffer statements, and another witness’s testimony about Rodriguez-Padron’s prior methamphetamine transactions. See United States v. Clarke, 564 F.3d 949, 957-58 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding no error under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) by allowing impeachment evidence); United States v. Rowley, 975 F.2d 1357, 1362 (8th Cir. 1992) (upholding admission of defendant’s proffer statements for impeachment purposes). There is no support in the record for a finding that the sentence, which was at the bottom of the guidelines range, was unreasonable. See United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016). Having conducted an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issue. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -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.
