United States v. Tomas Martinez-Castelo, No. 08-2063 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2063 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Tomas Martinez-Castelo, also known * as Thomas Flores-Molina, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: April 7, 2009 Filed: May 5, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Tomas Martinez-Castelo challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court erred in not considering imposition of a sentence below the statutory minimum. 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We find that the sentence, which was at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range and was based on proper 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, is reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence at bottom of Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (approving appellate presumption); 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 have found no nonfrivolous issues. Therefore, 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.
