United States v. Andres Sanchez, No. 16-4552 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court properly considered the 3553(a) factors and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4552 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Andres Sanchez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs ____________ Submitted: August 11, 2017 Filed: August 11, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Andres Sanchez challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to drug charges. Sanchez’s counsel 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was below the Guidelines range, see United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
