United States v. Martin Soltero-Hernandez, No. 10-2269 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. District court properly recognized its obligation to calculate the advisory Guidelines range, acknowledged its consideration of all sentencing factors, and imposed a sentence within the undisputed Guidelines range. Defendant could not rebut resulting presumption of reasonableness.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2269 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Martin Soltero-Hernandez, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: October 5, 2010 Filed: October 5, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Martin Soltero-Hernandez challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to an immigration offense. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court committed procedural error by treating the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory. 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). We find no abuse of discretion here. First, the court properly recognized its obligation to calculate the advisory Guidelines range based on the Guidelines as they currently existed before deciding whether to depart or vary, and acknowledged its consideration of all the sentencing factors. See id. at 461 (procedural error includes improper application of Guidelines, treating Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) factors, selecting sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain sentence). Second, the sentence was imposed within the undisputed Guidelines range, and there is no indication that Soltero-Hernandez would be able to rebut the resulting presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Valadez, 573 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Soltero-Hernandez about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
