Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02505/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angel Espinosa-Lozano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2505

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Angel Espinosa-Lozano, also known as *

Angel Espinosa, also known as Angel * [UNPUBLISHED]

Lozano, also known as Manuel *

Corrales-Estrada, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 29, 2010

Filed: April 8, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Angel Espinosa-Lozano (Espinosa) pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the

United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and 6 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 09-2505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2010 Entry ID: 3652632
2

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

§§ 202(3)-(4), 557. The district court2

 imposed a sentence of 36 months in prison and

3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Espinosa’s counsel has moved to withdraw

and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

sentence imposed was greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the

sentence and no indication the district court, in imposing a below-Guidelines-range

sentence, overlooked or misapplied any relevant § 3553(a) factor, or gave significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834,

849 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding a sentence was not unreasonable where the record

reflected the district court made an individualized assessment based on the facts

presented and specifically addressed the defendant’s proffered information in its

consideration of sentencing factors), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010); United

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

constitute an abuse of discretion); cf. United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579,

583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a

sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range). Finding no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and we affirm the judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2010 Entry ID: 3652632