UNITED STATES v. ALBARRAN (2018)

[Unpublished]

Juan Albarran directly appeals the consecutive Guidelines-range sentence the district court ¹ imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and financial crime charges. His counsel 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 sentence is unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a fully consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The court explicitly stated that it was considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (factors to be considered in imposing sentence), and there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b) (imposition of concurrent or consecutive prison terms; district court shall consider § 3553(a) factors in making determination); United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820-22 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review; affirming where court discussed § 3553(a) factors and imposed consecutive sentences).

We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.