United States v. Eduardo Contreras-Flore, No. 11-1946 (8th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error and the sentence it imposed was substantively reasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1946 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Eduardo Contreras-Flores, also known as Carlos Flores, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: October 5, 2011 Filed: October 19, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Eduardo Contreras-Flores pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. See 8 U.S.C. ยง 1326(a) and (b). The district court1 sentenced him to 77 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the sentence is unreasonable. Contreras-Flores has filed a supplemental brief challenging his sentence and asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective. 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Contrary to counsel s and Contreras-Flores s arguments, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Contreras-Flores, and that the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008). We decline to review Contreras-Flores s ineffective-assistance claims in this direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (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.