United States v. Victor Varela-Arzola, No. 15-2776 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not commit any significant procedural error or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, and the sentence imposed is affirmed. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2776 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Victor Manuel Varela-Arzola, also known as Hector Varela, also known as Jose Torres Varela, also known as Jose Torres, also known as Jose V. Torres, also known as Victor Varela, also known as Many Vaarela, also known as Victor Marin, also known as Hector Rodriguez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: February 24, 2016 Filed: March 1, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Victor Varela-Arzola appeals after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense and the District Court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), generally challenging Varela-Arzola’s sentence. Varela-Arzola has filed a supplemental brief arguing—in reference to a supervised-release revocation sentence imposed at the same hearing—that he should have received concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences. After careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not commit any significant procedural sentencing error or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076–77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court has the discretion to impose a sentence concurrently or consecutively based on the same [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors as other sentencing decisions.”). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
