Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Epifanio Sanchez SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-12
Citations: 669 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 16-1817
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Epifanio Sanchez SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Epifanio Sanchez SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-1817
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: September 27, 2016
Filed: October 12, 2016
Clifford R. Cronk, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Davenport, IA.
Epifanio Sanchez Sanchez, Pro Se, Mus-catine, IA.
Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Epifanio S. Sanchez pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison, in accordance with a plea agreement stipulating that the government would not seek a sentence exceeding 120 months, but that Sanchez could seek a lower sentence. Sanchez appeals, arguing the sentence is unreasonable based on his circumstances. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court properly considered and individually assessed several 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion occurs where sentencing court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing them); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court need not mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from record that court actually considered them in determining sentence); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion standard). The sentence imposed by the district court was lower than the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) ("[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further."). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.