United States v. Sergio Gonzalez, No. 19-2542 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The court was aware of its authority to grant a downward departure, and its discretionary decision not to is unreviewable; sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. [ April 17, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2542 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Sergio Sanchez Gonzalez, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: April 9, 2020 Filed: April 20, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Sergio Sanchez Gonzalez appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry to the United States after he was previously 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. deported. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. To the extent Sanchez Gonzalez’s argument implies that the district court erred in failing to grant a downward departure, we conclude that because the district court was aware of its authority to depart downward, its discretionary decision not to do so is unreviewable. See United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912, 919 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we further 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 overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
