United States v. Jose Rubio

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2162 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Jose Gustavo Rubio, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: March 28, 2006 Filed: April 5, 2006 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jose Gustavo Rubio appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and to one count of criminal forfeiture. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Rubio’s 168-month prison sentence, imposed upon consideration of an advisory Guidelines imprisonment 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. range of 168-210 months, is unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that Rubio should instead have been sentenced to the 120-month statutory minimum. We note that the sentence imposed comports with Rubio’s plea agreement and the unobjected-to calculations in the presentence report. We have found nothing in the record to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range gives rise to presumption of reasonableness, which defendant must rebut), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). Although Rubio had no prior convictions, the instant offense involved a large quantity of methamphetamine, and the district court, having considered the section 3553(a) factors, showed some leniency by sentencing Rubio at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -2-