United States v. Francisco Pec-Son, No. 16-4390 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Arnold, and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not commit plain procedural error by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence. [ July 13, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4390 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Francisco Pec-Son lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: July 6, 2017 Filed: July 14, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Francisco Pec-Son appeals following imposition of sentence upon his guilty plea to unlawful use of identification documents and misuse of a social security number. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), argues that the district court1 committed plain procedural error by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence that the court imposed on Pec-Son. After careful review, we conclude that no plain procedural error occurred. See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 67071 (8th Cir. 2016) (if defendant fails to object to adequacy of district court’s explanation for sentence, this court reviews for plain error); United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (explanation is sufficient if record as a whole demonstrates that court considered relevant factors). Further, 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, United States District Judge 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.
