United States v. Armando Reyes, No. 05-1337 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was reasonable, especially in light of defendant's lengthy criminal history and prior convictions for possessing or trafficking escalating quantities of drugs.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-1337 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Armando Reyes, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: January 5, 2006 Filed: January 20, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Armando Reyes pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess more than 50 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 846. The district court1 sentenced him at the top of the advisory Guidelines range to 87 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons discussed below, we grant counsel s motion and affirm. 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Counsel argues that the sentence imposed is unreasonable under the standard of review announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). However, a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and we conclude that Reyes has not satisfied his burden to rebut that presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 2005 WL 3067440 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2005) (No. 05-7506). Of particular relevance is his lengthy criminal history, including prior convictions for possessing or trafficking escalating quantities of marijuana. After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -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.
