United States v. Gaspar Francisco, No. 17-3703 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not overlook any relevant 3553 factor or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors, and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3703 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Gaspar Jose Francisco lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: July 18, 2018 Filed: July 30, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Gaspar Francisco challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to enticing a minor to engage in sexual 1 The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. activity. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 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.
