Filed: Apr. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2683 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Cesar Caransa-Torres, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 21, 2004 Filed: April 23, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Cesar Caransa-Torres appeals the sentence imposed by the district court* after Caransa-Torres pleaded guilty to drug char
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2683 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Cesar Caransa-Torres, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 21, 2004 Filed: April 23, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Cesar Caransa-Torres appeals the sentence imposed by the district court* after Caransa-Torres pleaded guilty to drug charg..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-2683
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the District
v. * of Nebraska.
*
Cesar Caransa-Torres, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 21, 2004
Filed: April 23, 2004
___________
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Cesar Caransa-Torres appeals the sentence imposed by the district court* after
Caransa-Torres pleaded guilty to drug charges. On appeal, Caransa-Torres's counsel
filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although Caransa-
Torres was granted permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
Counsel argues the Sentencing Guidelines and statutory minimum terms of
*
The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
imprisonment violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the Eighth Amendment.
These arguments fail. See Chapman v. United States,
500 U.S. 453, 467 (1991);
Mistretta v. United States,
488 U.S. 361, 380-84 (1989); United States v. Prior,
107
F.3d 654, 658-60 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
522 U.S. 824 (1997).
Having carefully reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio,
488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the
district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-