Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0275-01.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. Victor Manuel VARELA-ARZOLA, also known as Hector Varela, also known as Jose Torres Varela, also known as Jose Torres, also known as Jose V. Torres, also known as Victor Varela, also known as Many Vaarela, also known as Victor Marin, also known as Hector Rodriguez Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-2776.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 24, 2016.
    Filed: March 1, 2016.
    Robert G. Kuchar, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO' (Laine Cardarel-la, Fed, Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.
    Victor Manuel Varela-Arzola, Hinton, OK, pro se.
    John E. Cowles, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
    Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Victor Varela-Arzola appeals after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense and the District Court imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His 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), generally challenging Varela-Arzo-la’s sentence. Varela-Arzola has filed a supplemental brief arguing — in reference to a supervised-release revocation sentence imposed at the same hearing — that he should have received concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences.

After careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not commit any significant procedural sentencing error or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir.2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir.2011) (“[A] district court has the discretion to impose a sentence concurrently or consecutively based on the same [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors as other sentencing decisions.”). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct., 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.