United States v. Theresa Morales, No. 16-4297 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the record supported the district court's decision to impose a role enhancement rather than the role reduction defendant sought.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4297 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Theresa G. Morales lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: July 20, 2017 Filed: July 25, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Theresa Morales challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following her guilty plea to drug and gun charges. Her 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Morales has filed 2 motions, in which she seeks appointment of new counsel; and asserts that she should have received a shorter sentence given her minor role, and that counsel was ineffective. As to counsel’s argument that the below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was below the Guidelines range, see United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). To the extent Morales is arguing that she should have received a minor role reduction, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in imposing the role enhancement (rather than a role reduction). See United States v. Camacho, 555 F.3d 695, 706 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, as it would be better litigated in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny both motions for new counsel, and 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.
