United States v. Larry Navarete, No. 17-2294 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No procedural error in sentencing; any procedural error would be harmless in light of the court's statement it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had granted defendant's objections; within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2294 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Larry Jesus Navarete, also known as Larry Navarrete, also known as NICA lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: April 23, 2018 Filed: April 26, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Larry Navarete challenges the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved to 1 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), considering whether the sentence was procedurally unsound, substantively unreasonable, or otherwise illegally imposed. After careful review, we conclude that no procedural error occurred, and any such error would have been harmless because the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained Navarete’s objections. See United States v. LaRoche, 700 F.3d 363, 365 (8th Cir. 2012). We further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant section 18 U.S.C. § 3553 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 within the Guidelines range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, 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.