Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-23-03663/USCOURTS-ca8-23-03663-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Alfonso Leon-Pacheco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3663

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Victor Alfonso Leon-Pacheco

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Western

 ____________

 Submitted: November 26, 2024

Filed: December 3, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Leon-Pacheco appeals after a jury found him guilty of drug charges and

the district court1

 sentenced him to 360 months in prison. His counsel has moved to

1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

Appellate Case: 23-3663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2024 Entry ID: 5461895
withdraw, and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 38 (1967),

arguing that the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence, that the district

court erred in determining that Leon-Pacheco was a career offender, and that the

within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable. 

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the government presented

sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury’s guilty verdict. See United States v.

Reichel, 911 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2018). We also conclude that the district

court did not err in ruling that Leon-Pacheco was a career offender. See United States

v. Rivera, 76 F.4th 1085, 1088-91 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v.

Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691, 692-94 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Further, the

sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable, as the record reflects that the

court properly calculated the Guidelines range and considered the appropriate

sentencing factors. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014);

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

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

grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 23-3663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2024 Entry ID: 5461895