Court Opinion

ID: 9838659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 15:01:20.479794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.035405
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3655
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

             Freddy Ciro Salinas, also known as Freddie Cero Salinas

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: September 1, 2023
                            Filed: September 7, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Freddy Salinas appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, and the
district court1 sentenced him to 71 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of

      1
      The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred
in calculating the Guidelines imprisonment range.

      Having reviewed the record, we conclude any error in calculating Salinas’s
Guidelines range was harmless. See United States v. Wardlow, 830 F.3d 817, 822
(8th Cir. 2016) (explaining the standard of review). The district court adequately
explained why the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence, and concluded
it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of how it resolved Salinas’s
challenge to the calculation of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Hamilton,
929 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir. 2019) (concluding any Guidelines miscalculation was
harmless when the district court stated it imposed the sentence based on the § 3553(a)
factors, “regardless of the calculation of the sentencing guidelines”). Finally, we
have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),
and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
                    ______________________________

                                         -2-