United States v. Gerardo Lopez-Martinez, No. 15-2969 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy, and Bye, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The court will not sustain a procedural challenge to the district court's discussion of the 3553(a) factors where the defendant does not object to the adequacy of the court's explanation at sentencing; the record does not, in any event, show that the court overlooked a relevant factor, considered an improper factor or committed a clear error of judgment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2969 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Gerardo Lopez-Martinez, also known as Eduardo Espinoza lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: January 8, 2016 Filed: February 2, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gerardo Lopez-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful use of an identification document and misuse of a social security number. The district court1 sentenced him to time served and 3 years of supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), argues that the court committed plain procedural error by failing to adequately explain the reasons for Lopez-Martinez’s sentence, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. “We will not sustain a procedural challenge to the district court’s discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors by a defendant who did not object to the adequacy of the court’s explanation at sentencing.” United States v. Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719, 734 (8th Cir. 2015). Further, nothing in the record indicates that the court overlooked a relevant sentencing factor, considered an improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment, in fashioning Lopez-Martinez’s sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness of sentence). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
