Case ID: f-appx_709/html/0384-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria HERNANDEZ-SOTELO, also known as Maria Renaye De Leon, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-2420
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 13, 2017
    Filed: December 18, 2017
    Daniel C. Tvedt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    
      Maria Hernandez-Sotelo, Pro Se
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Maria Hernandez-Sotelo (Hernandez) directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after she pled.guilty to misusing a social security number. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court committed plain procedural error by failing to explain adequately the reasons for Hernandez’s sentence, and questioning the reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review, we conclude that no plain procedural error occurred, as the record as a whole demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussing standard of review where defendant did not object to sufficiency of explanation at sentencing); see also United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013). We also conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion. standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (presuming sentence within Guidelines range is reasonable). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed. 
      
      . The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.