United States v. Manolo Perez-Lopez, No. 07-1339 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence at the top of the undisputed Guidelines range was not unreasonable in light of defendant's history and the seriousness of his offense.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-1339 ___________ United States, Appellee, v. Manolo Perez-Lopez, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 15, 2007 Filed: November 30, 2007 ___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Manolo Perez-Lopez appeals the 18-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(i). Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. We disagree. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Perez-Lopez at the top of the undisputed 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. advisory Guidelines imprisonment range, and that in doing so the court properly considered relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of transporting 11 aliens and Perez-Lopez s repeated illegal entries into the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of offense, history and characteristics of defendant), (2)(A) (need for sentence to reflect seriousness of offense); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing reasonableness review). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
