Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-03118/USCOURTS-ca8-19-03118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Chavez Oviedo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3117

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Adrian Chavez Oviedo, also known as Michael Mendoza

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ___________________________

No. 19-3118

___________________________

 United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Adrian Chavez Oviedo, also known as Michael Mendoza

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeals from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

 ____________

Appellate Case: 19-3118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Entry ID: 4903285
Submitted: April 9, 2020

Filed: April 16, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Adrian Oviedo appeals the sentence imposed by

the district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses in two separate

cases--instituted by separate indictments--which were consolidated prior to the plea

hearing. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in each case, and has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was

unreasonable.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively

unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed

for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse

of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant

weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in

weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the

Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir.

2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly

inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).

1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-3118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Entry ID: 4903285
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm, and we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 19-3118 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Entry ID: 4903285