United States v. Juan Albarran, No. 17-3516 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in making defendant's sentences consecutive. 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. 17-3516 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Delacruz Albarran lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: August 29, 2018 Filed: September 4, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Juan Albarran directly appeals the consecutive Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and financial crime charges. 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a fully consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The court explicitly stated that it was considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (factors to be considered in imposing sentence), and there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b) (imposition of concurrent or consecutive prison terms; district court shall consider § 3553(a) factors in making determination); United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820-22 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review; affirming where court discussed § 3553(a) factors and imposed consecutive sentences). We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-