Court Opinion

ID: 9942552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 16:01:59.79949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:20.162481
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 23-3543
                      ___________________________

                           United States of America

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

 Alfredo Vladimir Andrad Medina, also known as Samuel Garcia Andrade, also
known as Vladimir Andrade, also known as Edgar Aldair Cobos Diaz, also known
 as Jesus Lopez, also known as Alfredo Andrade Medina, also known as Moises
                                Cortez Lopez

                    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                    ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
              for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
                               ____________

                        Submitted: February 15, 2024
                          Filed: February 21, 2024
                               [Unpublished]
                               ____________

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

PER CURIAM.
       Alfredo Medina appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence was unreasonable.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing
sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor,
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error
of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a
sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119,
1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the
Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in
not varying further).

      We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

                                         -2-