United States v. Fabian Franciso Spear, No. 10-2369 (8th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error and the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2369 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Fabian Francisco Spears, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 24, 2010 Filed: December 2, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Fabian Francisco Spears appeals the two concurrent 204-month sentences imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to two counts of abusive sexual contact with a child who had not attained the age of 12 years, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 1151, 1153, 2244(a)(5), 2246(3). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that the sentence was greater than necessary. 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 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.