United States v. Yoandri Hernandez, No. 18-3337 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Erickson and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived his challenges to the guidelines calculations when he withdrew his objections at sentencing; sentence was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3337 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Yoandri Michel Hernandez, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: August 6, 2019 Filed: August 9, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Yoandri Hernandez appeals the sentence of 210 months’ imprisonment imposed by the district court1 after Hernandez pleaded guilty to drug and firearm 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in its calculations under the sentencing guidelines and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. In his supplemental brief, Hernandez also challenges the calculations under the guidelines. We first conclude that Hernandez waived his challenges to the guidelines calculations when he withdrew his objections at sentencing. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687–88 (8th Cir. 2016). Next, we conclude that the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence, as we presume that sentence within the range is reasonable, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave 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.
