United States v. Enrique Cazarez, No. 06-1891 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1891 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Enrique Cazarez, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: August 30, 2007 Filed: September 5, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Enrique Cazarez (Cazarez) appeals the 235-month sentence the district court1 imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Cazarez s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the sentence, which was at the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. The district court considered Cazarez s Guidelines imprisonment range, along with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Nothing in the record suggests the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; defining ways in which abuse of discretion may occur). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. __________________ -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.
