United States v. Jose Carreon, No. 10-3723 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3723 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jose Carreon, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 14, 2011 Filed: December 20, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Under the terms of a written plea agreement, Jose Carreon pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(A), and § 846; and entering the United States unlawfully as an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). The district court1 determined that Mr. Carreon was entitled to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) relief from the statutory minimum sentence for the drug offense, and imposed a sentence of 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. His 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was reasonable. We see no indication that the district court erred in applying the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, considering the relevant sentencing factors, or explaining its sentence; and we conclude that the sentence, at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range, was not unreasonable. See United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; according presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing procedural error). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Carreon about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
