United States v. Crispin Leon-Lopez, No. 12-4001 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court committed no significant procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-4001 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Crispin Leon-Lopez, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: March 22, 2013 Filed: April 1, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Crispin Leon-Lopez directly appeals after he pled guilty to an illegal-reentry offense and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the prison term imposed by the district court is unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Leon-Lopez. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (review of sentences for abuse of discretion includes (1) ensuring no significant procedural error occurred; and (2) considering substantive reasonableness of sentence under totality of circumstances; where sentence falls within Guidelines range, appeals court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Leon-Lopez 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.
