United States of America v. Francisco Reyes

St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a illegal reentry charge.

Francisco Javier Munguia Reyes appeals after he pleaded guilty to illegal

reentry, and the district court1

sentenced him to sixty months in prison. His counsel

1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa.

has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Counsel argues the district court procedurally erred by applying an

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2014) ("crime of violence”), and

imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.



Having reviewed the record, we conclude that any potential procedural error

in applying the enhancement was harmless because the district court was aware of

and acknowledged the alternative advisory guideline range, expressly stated it would

have imposed the same sentence regardless of any error, and adequately explained its

decision, which was supported by the law and the record. See United States v.

Sayles, 674 F.3d 1069, 1072 (8th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Lemus-Garcia,

594 Fed. Appx. 321, 322-23 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); United States v.

Montoya-Echeverria, 608 Fed. Appx. 432, 432-33 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). We

conclude, moreover, that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review). The court

properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 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, including Reyes's rehabilitative efforts and lack of prior immigration

offenses. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009)

(en banc). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.