Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02012/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Snofawn Torres-Webber
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2012

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Snofawn Torres-Webber

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: December 25, 2015

Filed: January 11, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Snofawn Torres-Webber appeals from the sentence imposed by the District

Court1

 after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit robbery. Her counsel has

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-2012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2016 Entry ID: 4354483 
moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the sentence and conditions of supervised release are

unreasonable. We conclude that the within-Guidelines sentence is not substantively

unreasonable. United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2012) (standards

of review). Because Torres-Webber did not object to the conditions of supervised

release at sentencing, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Simons,

614 F.3d 475, 478 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). There is no such

error. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (noting that additional conditions of supervised release

must be “reasonably related” to certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, involve “no

greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary,” and be consistent with any

relevant Sentencing Commission policy statements). We have reviewed the record

independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous

issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2016 Entry ID: 4354483