United States v. Juan Ortega-Bustamante, No. 14-1462 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence on defendant's drug charge was the mandatory minimum and is not reviewable for reasonableness; defendant's sentence on the illegal-reentry conviction was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1462 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Ortega-Bustamante lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: September 2, 2014 Filed: September 5, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Juan Ortega-Bustamante directly appeals the concurrent sentences the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following an 1 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. aggravated-felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), and conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, 851. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentences are unreasonable. Upon careful review, we note that the sentence on the drug charge is the statutory minimum, and thus is not reviewable for reasonableness, see United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not relate to statutorily imposed sentences); and we conclude that the illegal-reentry sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision). Accordingly, we affirm. As for counsel s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment. ______________________________ -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.
