United States v. Jose Valencia, No. 18-2937 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2937 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jose Maria Valencia, also known as Don Chema lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: June 19, 2019 Filed: June 24, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jose Valencia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to life in 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. prison. In an Anders brief, Valencia’s counsel suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and requests permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We conclude that Valencia’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461. We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
