United States v. Modesto Mancia-Polanco, No. 10-1771 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No procedural error occurred during sentencing, and the sentence imposed was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1771 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * Modesto De Asuncion Mancia-Polanco, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: August 26, 2010 Filed: September 3, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Modesto Mancia-Polanco directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the District Court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting the sentence is excessive. Upon careful review, we conclude that the District Court, in sentencing ManciaPolanco, committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, the appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred, then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances; if the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness). Having independently reviewed this matter under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.
