Court Opinion

ID: 9369606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 16:01:32.301007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:15.429179
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 22-3167
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

         Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez

    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
       ___________________________

             No. 22-3173
     ___________________________

           United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

         Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez

    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                    ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
 for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
               ____________
                            Submitted: February 6, 2023
                              Filed: February 9, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez appeals the sentences
the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry and his
supervised release was revoked. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences
are substantively unreasonable, when considered individually and in combination.

       After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
910, 915-16, 917 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude the district court did not impose
substantively unreasonable sentences. The sentences were within the statutory
maximums, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), and the revocation
sentence was also presumptively reasonable because it fell within the applicable
advisory range under the sentencing guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United
States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). The court considered the
statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in
weighing relevant factors, including those discussed in the Anders brief. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc). Although the court gave those factors less weight than
Rodriguez-Chavez preferred, it acted within its wide discretion. See United States

      1
        The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.

                                         -2-
v. Hernandez-Pineda, 849 F.3d 769, 771-73 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Clayton,
828 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th
Cir. 2009). 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 affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw in both cases.
                      ______________________________

                                        -3-