United States v. Alfredo Flores-Silva, No. 11-2703 (8th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing defendant, and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2703 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Alfredo Flores-Silva, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 6, 2011 Filed: December 7, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Alfredo Flores-Silva pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine and at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 108 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Flores-Silva s counsel moves to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is excessive. 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court, in sentencing FloresSilva, committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-ofdiscretion standard, taking into account totality of circumstances; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues 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.