United States v. Carlos Brandon , 330 F. App'x 118 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-2556
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Carlos R. Brandon,                       *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 31, 2009
    Filed: August 5, 2009
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In 2006, a jury found Carlos Brandon guilty of conspiring to distribute and
    possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine (Count 1), possessing
    cocaine base with intent to distribute (Count 5), and carrying a firearm in relation to
    a drug-trafficking crime (Count 7). The district court1 sentenced him to concurrent
    terms of life in prison on Counts 1 and 5, and a consecutive 5-year term on Count 7.
    On appeal, this court remanded for resentencing on Count 5. See United States v.
    Brandon, 
    521 F.3d 1019
    , 1027-28 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 314
    (2008). The
    1
    The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    district court then imposed a sentence of 210 months on Count 5, to be served
    concurrently with the life sentence on Count 1. Brandon appeals. His counsel has
    moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967),
    arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.
    We consider whether a sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 261-62 (2005). Noting
    the limited scope of this appeal, see United States v. Kendall, 
    475 F.3d 961
    , 964 (8th
    Cir. 2007) (scope of remand determined by analysis contained in appellate decision),
    we hold that Brandon’s sentence is not unreasonable. At resentencing, the district
    court specifically referred to numerous section 3553(a) factors, including the nature
    and circumstances of the offense, Brandon’s extensive criminal history, the options
    available to the court, and various sentencing goals. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
    (2)(A)-(C), (3), (6). Further, the court found that a sentence at the bottom of the
    Guidelines range was appropriate, and that the applicable range was 210-262 months.
    We see nothing in the record to suggest that the court failed to consider a relevant
    factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an
    improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
    appropriate factors. See United States v. Haack, 
    403 F.3d 997
    , 1003-04 (8th Cir.
    2005); see also United States v. Toothman, 
    543 F.3d 967
    , 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (within-
    Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny the
    pending pro se motion, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel
    informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for
    certiorari.
    ______________________________
    -2-