United States v. Gabriel A. Nabejar, No. 06-3107 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was correctly determined by the district court and the within-Guidelines sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3107 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Gabriel Abundiz Nabejar, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: October 9, 2007 Filed: December 28, 2007 ___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Gabriel Abundiz Nabejar appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to re-entering the United States as a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Abundiz Nabejar s counsel seeks permission to withdraw. 1 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. We conclude that Abundiz Nabejar s advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was correctly determined by the district court, and that his within-Guidelines sentence is not unreasonable because nothing in the record suggests the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in imposing the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 246268 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (factors used to review sentence for reasonableness). The factors the court considered in imposing a top-of-the-Guidelines sentence--Nabejar s serious and significant criminal history, his failure to register as a sex offender, his use of alias names, and the need to provide just punishment and afford adequate deterrence--were all proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(A) (provide just punishment), (a)(2)(B) (afford adequate deterrence). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave 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.
