Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02375/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02375-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Lopez-Angel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2375

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Juan Carlos Lopez-Angel, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 22, 2009

Filed: January 12, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Juan Lopez-Angel, who pleaded guilty to a drug

charge, appeals the within-Guidelines-range prison sentence the district court1

imposed after ostensibly granting Lopez-Angel’s motion for a downward variance.

Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that, because the court stated it was granting Lopez-Angel’s

motion for a downward variance and because Lopez-Angel cooperated with lawAppellate Case: 08-2375 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 Entry ID: 3623337
-2-

enforcement officers, the court should have imposed a below-Guidelines-range

sentence.

We review sentences for reasonableness, using a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard: first, we ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural

error such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sentencing based on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to explain the chosen sentence; then we consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the totality of the circumstances. See

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

that constitute abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997,

1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing LopezAngel, as the court specifically addressed the section 3553(a) factors, including the

nature of the offense and Lopez-Angel’s criminal history and characteristics

(especially his cooperation), and the court arrived at a substantively reasonable

sentence under the totality of the circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United

States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where record reflected that district

court made individualized assessment based on facts presented and specifically

addressed defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of sentencing factors,

sentence was not unreasonable). To the extent the court committed any procedural

error by indicating it was granting a “variance” and then imposing a sentence within

the Guidelines range, that error was harmless. Cf. United States v. Waldner, 580 F.3d

699, 709 (8th Cir. 2009) (failure to properly calculate advisory Guidelines range is

significant procedural error, but only a non-harmless error in calculating Guidelines

range requires remand for resentencing).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel

Appellate Case: 08-2375 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 Entry ID: 3623337
-3-

informing Lopez-Angel about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for

certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2375 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 Entry ID: 3623337