United States v. Juan Garcia, No. 13-2437 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not err in its factual findings regarding the quantity and type of drugs attributable to defendant; nor did the court abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to the low end of his properly-calculated Guidelines range.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2437 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Garcia lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: December 6, 2013 Filed: December 11, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Juan Garcia directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. and 18 U.S.C. § 2. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court clearly erred in determining the quantity and type of drugs attributable to Garcia for purposes of calculating his Guidelines imprisonment range, and that the court therefore abused its discretion in sentencing him within the calculated range. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings regarding the quantity and type of drugs attributable to Garcia. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) & comment. (backg d.) (in drug distribution case, quantities and types of drugs not specified in count of conviction are to be included in determining offense level if they were part of same course of conduct or part of common scheme or plan as count of conviction); United States v. Ault, 446 F.3d 821, 823 (8th Cir. 2006) (whether uncharged conduct is part of same course of conduct involves fact-intensive inquiry; appellate court reviews sentencing court s relevant-conduct findings for clear error). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Garcia to a prison term at the low end of his correctly calculated Guidelines imprisonment range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court applies deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to sentencing decision and may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence). Finally, having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous 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.
