United States v. Enrique Manzo, No. 13-3765 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable; court's recommendation that defendant's prison term be ordered to run consecutively to his anticipated state terms did not make the sentence unreasonable. [ June 20, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3765 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Enrique Manzo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: June 16, 2014 Filed: June 23, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Enrique Manzo directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense and the district court1 sentenced him to 100 months in prison. His counsel 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Manzo s sentence is unreasonable because (1) the 100-month prison term was in the middle, not at the bottom, of Manzo s Guidelines range as recalculated by the court after granting the government s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 downward-departure motion, and (2) the court recommended that Manzo s prison term be ordered to run consecutively to certain anticipated state prison terms. We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting Manzo s term of imprisonment. See United States v. Zauner, 688 F.3d 426, 429 (8th Cir. 2012) (substantive reasonableness of sentence based on both § 5K1.1 motion and district court s consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is reviewed for abuse of discretion). We further conclude that the district court s recommendation regarding consecutive prison terms did not result in an unreasonable sentence. Cf. Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1473 (2012) (noting that it was within district court s discretion to order that defendant s sentence run consecutively to his anticipated state sentence). Finally, having reviewed the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Manzo 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.
