United States of America v. Pedro Delatorre

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3861
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Pedro Delatorre
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge
____________
Submitted: April 23, 2013
Filed: May 7, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Pedro Delatorre appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he1
pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine after having
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge of the United States District1
Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

been convicted of a felony drug offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and
851; and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Counsel seeks leave to withdraw and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the 180-month
sentence is unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to meet the statutory
goals of sentencing and the district court failed to make an individualized assessment
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Delatorre’s guilty plea made him subject to statutory minimum sentences of
120 months in prison on the drug count and a consecutive 60 months in prison on the
firearm count. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and
(c)(1)(D)(ii). The court in imposing these minimum consecutive sentences had no
authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum on either count. United
States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Therefore, counsel’s
argument fails. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006)
(United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not relate to “statutorily-imposed
sentences”). Upon careful review of the record, we find no nonfrivolous issues for
appeal, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --