United States v. Oscar Vazquez, No. 16-3754 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Riley, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ May 04, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3754 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Oscar Flores Vazquez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: April 25, 2017 Filed: May 5, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Oscar Flores Vazquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, the district court1 varied below the advisory Guidelines range to 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. impose a sentence of 42 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw; and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, because Vazquez’s lack of criminal history, and his minimal and nonviolent involvement in the offense, warranted a lesser sentence. Counsel’s argument fails. Upon review of the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the district court’s carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court varied downward from Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that it abused its discretion in not varying downward further still). Further, having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
