United States v. Juan Martinez-Chavez, No. 09-2415 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court committed no procedural error in sentencing defendant and the sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2415 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan Martinez-Chavez, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: April 29, 2010 Filed: May 5, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Juan Martinez-Chavez challenges the sentence that the District Court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. MartinezChavez s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Upon careful review, we conclude that the District Court committed no procedural error in sentencing Martinez-Chavez and that the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (explaining that in reviewing a sentence, the appellate court first ensures 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. that the district court committed no significant procedural error and then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard; if the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.) (noting that an abuse of discretion may occur when the court fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing them), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 913 (2005). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and 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.
