United States v. Espinoza, No. 15-3489 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence of 188 months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, a mixture containing cocaine, and a mixture containing marijuana. The court concluded that it is unneccessary to address whether defendant qualifies as a career offender under USSG 4B1.2 because the district court’s alternative decision to vary upward from the advisory guideline range is sufficient to justify the sentence imposed. In this case, the district court’s above-guidelines sentence is reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and found that defendant had a high risk of re-offending, and that the need to protect the public outweighed any mitigating factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentence. The challenge to the district court's application of career offender enhancement need not be addressed because the district court made alternative decision to vary upward from the advisory guidelines even if Espinoza was not technically a career offender. District court's above-guidelines sentence was reasonable.
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.