United States v. John Farias, No. 19-1608 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in applying a role enhancement as the undisputed facts in the PSR established defendant served as a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1608 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. John Paul Farias lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: December 17, 2019 Filed: December 20, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. John Farias appeals after he pled guilty to a drug conspiracy offense, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the advisory range under the 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred in applying an enhancement for Farias’s role in the offense. We conclude the district court did not clearly err in applying a role enhancement, as the undisputed facts in the presentence report (“PSR”) established Farias was a manager or supervisor of the drug conspiracy. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error); United States v. Menteer, 408 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding failure to object to facts in PSR constitutes admission of those facts). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we 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.
