United States v. Cuauthemoc Sanchez-Lopez, No. 13-1690 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant executed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his appeal rights and the appeal is dismissed. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1690 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Cuauthemoc Sanchez-Lopez, also known as Luis Picon Sanches lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: June 26, 2013 Filed: July 1, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cuauthemoc Sanchez-Lopez appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to an 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. immigration offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its discretion by declining to vary downward even further. Upon careful review, this court concludes that Sanchez-Lopez s appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement, that he entered into both the appeal waiver and the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the appeal waiver in this case. See United States v. Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2011) (court should enforce appeal waiver if both waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, appeal is within waiver s scope, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United Stated v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of whether defendant waived right to appeal sentence). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ -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.
