United States v. Marcos Gonzalez, No. 19-1420 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1420 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Marcos Antonio Chavez Gonzalez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: September 5, 2019 Filed: September 9, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Marcos Gonzalez appeals after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated Guidelines range. We conclude that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. Gonzalez was sentenced below the calculated Guidelines range 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) (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (where district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further). 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 permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
