United States v. Magali Marroquin, No. 17-3541 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3541 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Magali Marroquin, also known as Tiffany lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: December 7, 2018 Filed: December 14, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Magali Marroquin directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to identity-theft offenses. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Marroquin has not filed a pro se brief. Upon careful review, we conclude that Marroquin’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Magnum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that upward variance was reasonable where court made individualized assessment of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented and considered defendant’s proffered information); United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding denial of downward variance was substantively reasonable, as court considered arguments for downward variance and exercised its discretion in rejecting them). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave 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.
