United States v. Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso, No. 11-1968 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error in sentencing defendant, and the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1968 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: August 24, 2011 Filed: August 31, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso appeals from the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to distributing and aiding and abetting in the distribution of 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Chapelli-Pedroso, 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 Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Valadez, 573 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (sentence at bottom of Guidelines range is presumed reasonable). Nothing in the record indicates that the district court failed to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (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.
