United States v. Jorge Villagrana, No. 13-1722 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court appropriately considered the 3353(a) factors, adequately explained its sentencing decision and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1722 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jorge Padilla Villagrana lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: August 29, 2013 Filed: August 29, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jorge Padilla Villagrana directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to an immigration offense. His counsel 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Villagrana s 30-month prison term is unreasonable. The district court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its decision to sentence Villagrana to 30 months in prison. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (when reviewing sentences, appellate court applies deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error such as failing to adequately explain chosen sentence, and that court did not impose substantively unreasonable sentence); see also United States v. Spencer, 700 F.3d 317, 322 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding it nearly inconceivable that district court abused its discretion in not further varying downward). This court concludes that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court has found no nonfrivolous issues. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted and the sentence is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
