United States v. Maria Hernandez-Sotelo, No. 17-2420 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No plain procedural error occurred, as the district court considered the relevant 3553(a) factors; the within-guidelines sentence was not an abuse of the district court's discretion nor was it substantively unreasonable. [ December 15, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2420 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Maria Hernandez-Sotelo, also known as Maria Renaye De Leon, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: December 13, 2017 Filed: December 18, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Maria Hernandez-Sotelo (Hernandez) directly appeals the within-Guidelinesrange sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled guilty to misusing a social 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. security number. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court committed plain procedural error by failing to explain adequately the reasons for Hernandez’s sentence, and questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. After careful review, we conclude that no plain procedural error occurred, as the record as a whole demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussing standard of review where defendant did not object to sufficiency of explanation at sentencing); see also United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013). We also conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (presuming sentence within Guidelines range is reasonable). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed. ________________________________ -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.
