United States v. A. Pizano-Cornego , 44 F. App'x 47 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-3798
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the
    * Northern District of Iowa.
    Antonio Pizano-Cornego, also known *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    as Javier Vega, also known as Diablo, *
    *
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: August 7, 2002
    Filed: August 16, 2002
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit
    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Antonio Pizano-Cornego appeals from the final judgment entered in the
    District Court1 for the Northern District of Iowa after he pleaded guilty to two counts
    of distributing methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a school, in violation of 21
    U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) and 860(a), and one count of brandishing
    a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    1
    The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the
    Northern District of Iowa.
    § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced appellant to concurrent 108-month
    prison terms on the distribution counts and a consecutive 84-month term on the
    firearm count, followed by 8 years supervised release. Counsel has moved to
    withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing
    for reversal that the district court erred in sentencing appellant for brandishing--rather
    than merely possessing--the firearm.
    We conclude that, based on the testimony of an undercover agent at sentencing,
    the district court correctly sentenced Pizano-Cornego for brandishing a firearm. See
    United States v. Carlson, 
    217 F.3d 986
    , 987-89 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 
    531 U.S. 1095
    (2001). We have also reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio,
    
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues.
    Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
    judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-3798

Citation Numbers: 44 F. App'x 47

Filed Date: 8/16/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023