United States v. Trista Espinoza, No. 12-3058 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. In ruling on a 5K1.1 motion for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance, the court may only consider factors related to the assistance and may not use the 3553(a) factors to further reduce the sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3058 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Trista Marie Espinoza lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: June 24, 2013 Filed: July 18, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Trista Espinoza directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon granting the government s motion for a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, based upon Espinoza s substantial assistance. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court after granting the government s downward-departure motion and reducing Espinoza s sentence below the statutory minimum should have considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors unrelated to her substantial assistance, in order to reduce her sentence further. Espinoza also has a pending motion for appointment of new counsel. Upon careful review, this court concludes that counsel s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Billue, 576 F.3d 898, 902-04 (8th Cir. 2009) (in discussing district court s limited authority under § 3553(e) and § 5K1.1 to impose sentence below statutory minimum, emphasizing that, in ruling on government s downward-departure motion based on substantial assistance, court may consider only factors related to defendant s substantial assistance to government, and that, upon reducing sentence below statutory minimum, court may not use § 3553(a) factors to decrease sentence further). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, Espinoza s motion for appointment of counsel is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
