Opinion
No. 07-1491.
Submitted: November 26, 2007.
Filed: December 7, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Maria R. Moran, U.S. Attorney's Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.
Glenn Alan Shapiro, Gallup Schaefer, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.
Raymond Mendoza, Omaha, NE, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Raymond Mendoza challenges the 110-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing in excess of 5 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). Mendoza's counsel has sought permission to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by failing to sentence Mendoza to the statutory minimum of 60 months.
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Mendoza also admitted using a 1993 Cadiliac Eldorado in the commission of a controlled-substance offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853, and to violating the terms of supervised release on a previous conviction. The district court ordered forfeiture of the Cadillac and sentenced Mendoza to a consecutive 24-month term of imprisonment. The revocation sentence is not at issue in this appeal.
We conclude that Mendoza's sentence, which was at the bottom of the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range, is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007). The district court expressly considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and ruled out a sentence below the Guidelines range because of Mendoza's prior felony convictions, the dangers of methamphetamine, and the need to deter him from further criminal behavior. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(B). Nothing in the record suggests that the district court misapplied the relevant factors. See Harris, 493 F.3d at 932-33. After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's request to withdraw.