USA v. Ramiro R. Urbina, No. 06-2578 (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. 06-2578 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Ramiro R. Urbina, Appellant. * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: October 31, 2007 Filed: November 8, 2007 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Ramiro Urbina challenges the district court s1 amended judgment resentencing him to 360 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. In a prior decision, we affirmed Urbina s conviction, and remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On this appeal, in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Urbina s counsel challenges the length of Urbina s prison term, and makes a conclusory allegation that Urbina has been the victim of prosecutorial vindictiveness and selective law enforcement. In his pro se brief, Urbina 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. contends that corruption pervaded every aspect of his criminal proceeding, and he focuses on the injustice of the denial of his motion to suppress. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the denial of Urbina s motion to suppress was resolved against him during his first appeal, and he may not revisit the suppression ruling or any aspect of his conviction here. See Urbina, 431 F.3d at 309-10; United States v. Walterman, 408 F.3d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772, 776-77 (8th Cir. 1999). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
