United States v. Angel Espinosa-Lozano, No. 09-2505 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2505 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Angel Espinosa-Lozano, also known as * Angel Espinosa, also known as Angel * [UNPUBLISHED] Lozano, also known as Manuel * Corrales-Estrada, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: March 29, 2010 Filed: April 8, 2010 ___________ Before RILEY,1 Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Angel Espinosa-Lozano (Espinosa) pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010. §§ 202(3)-(4), 557. The district court2 imposed a sentence of 36 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Espinosa s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence and no indication the district court, in imposing a below-Guidelines-range sentence, overlooked or misapplied any relevant § 3553(a) factor, or gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding a sentence was not unreasonable where the record reflected the district court made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and specifically addressed the defendant s proffered information in its consideration of sentencing factors), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (listing the factors that constitute an abuse of discretion); cf. United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range). Finding no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we grant counsel s motion to withdraw and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
