United States v. Juan Cabrera-Ramirez, No. 18-2503 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The court imposed the statutory minimum sentence and such a sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ March 27, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2503 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Victor Cabrera-Ramirez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: March 27, 2019 Filed: March 28, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Juan Cabrera-Ramirez directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court considered an improper or irrelevant factor or committed a clear error in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Further, the court imposed the statutory mandatoryminimum sentence. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating the mandatory-minimum sentence was the shortest sentence possible absent a government motion and concluding it was not substantively unreasonable). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion 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.
