United States v. Epifanio Sanchez, No. 16-1817 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 11, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1817 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Epifanio Sanchez Sanchez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2016 Filed: October 12, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Epifanio S. Sanchez pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The district court1 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. sentenced him to 120 months in prison, in accordance with a plea agreement stipulating that the government would not seek a sentence exceeding 120 months, but that Sanchez could seek a lower sentence. Sanchez appeals, arguing the sentence is unreasonable based on his circumstances. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. The sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court properly considered and individually assessed several 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion occurs where sentencing court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing them); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court need not mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from record that court actually considered them in determining sentence); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion standard). The sentence imposed by the district court was lower than the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.”). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
