United States v. Neldwin Santana, No. 17-1498 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1498 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Neldwin Adan Santana lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: September 19, 2017 Filed: October 3, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Neldwin Adan Santana directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States. Santana’s counsel 1 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Santana has filed a pro se brief essentially arguing the same. After thorough review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as the court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and sentenced Santana at the bottom of the calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2017) (appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-