United States v. Walther Guerrero-Lopez, No. 10-1434 (8th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1434 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Walther Guerrero-Lopez, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 13, 2010 Filed: October 14, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Walther Guerrero-Lopez appeals the 46-month prison sentence the district court imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. ยง 1326(a) and (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. 1 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find 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.