Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Alejandro Jesus RODRIGUEZ Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
Alejandro Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and received a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 235 months in prison. In an Anders brief, Rodriguez’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In a pro se brief, Rodriguez argues that his sentence is unfair, primarily because another unnamed offender received a lower sentence than he did.
We conclude that Rodriguez’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Rodriguez’s pro se arguments also have no merit. He has not established a sentencing disparity, see United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (requiring the defendant to show a comparator with a similar record who engaged in similar conduct), and to the extent he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, we will not consider this issue now. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that ineffective-assistance-of-plea-counsel claims “are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and conclude that there are no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-3135
Decided: May 13, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)