UNITED STATES v. ARAMBUL (2019)

[Unpublished]

Baldemar Arambul directly appeals after a jury convicted him of drug and money laundering offenses, and the district court ¹ sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Counsel also requests leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (court need not mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from record that court actually considered them in determining sentence). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw,² and we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

2.   We remind counsel, however, that Anders briefing must be done as an advocate for the appellant, and the brief must refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Penson, 488 U.S. at 80, 109 S.Ct. 346 (Anders brief must refer to anything in record that might arguably support appeal); Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268 (8th Cir. 1989) (Anders briefing must be done as advocate).

PER CURIAM.