United States v. Rafael Melendrez, No. 22-1837 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Melloy, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ August 26, 2022 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1837 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Rafael Melendrez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: August 22, 2022 Filed: August 29, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rafael Melendrez appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the prison sentence. Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude Melendrez’s prison sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 694 (8th Cir. 2019). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and 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.
