United States v. Anibal Carbajal-Galvan, No. 19-1109 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims would not be considered on appeal; defendant's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ July 26, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1109 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Anibal Carbajal-Galvan lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: July 24, 2019 Filed: July 29, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Anibal Carbajal-Galvan directly appeals after he pled guilty to illegal reentry, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated United 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Carbajal-Galvan received ineffective assistance of counsel, and whether Carbajal-Galvan’s prison term is substantively unreasonable. Initially, we decline to consider any ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (noting generally an ineffective-assistance claim, not cognizable on direct appeal, is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). We further conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 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.
