United States v. Manuel Sanchez, No. 19-2525 (8th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 comment. (n.2); any error in applying the enhancement was harmless as the court stated it would sentence defendant as if it had not imposed the enhancement and sentenced him within the guidelines range calculated without the enhancement.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2525 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Manuel Sanchez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: March 23, 2020 Filed: March 26, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Manuel Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after a jury convicted him of a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and 1 The Honorable John M. Gerrard, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on his trial testimony. Sanchez has filed a motion for appointment of new counsel. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly found that the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was applicable to Sanchez, see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.2) (defendant’s denial of guilt is ordinarily not a basis for obstruction enhancement, other than a denial under oath that constitutes perjury); and that any error in the court’s determination was harmless in any event, as the court stated that it would sentence Sanchez as though he did not have the enhancement, and sentenced him within the Guidelines range calculated without the enhancement, see United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2010) (procedural errors in determining advisory Guidelines range are subject to harmless error analysis); United States v. Spikes, 543 F.3d 1021, 1025-26 (8th Cir. 2008) (where it is clear that sentencing court would have imposed same sentence regardless of whether appellant’s argument for lower Guidelines range ultimately prevailed, there can be no reversible error in sentence). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Sanchez’s motion for counsel. ______________________________ -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.