United States v. Moses Francisco, No. 20-1531 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward, and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1530 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Moses Anthon Francisco, also known as Moses Francisco Cruz, also known as Slick lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 20-1531 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Moses Anthon Francisco, also known as Moses Francisco Cruz, also known as Slick, also known as Moses Anthony Francisco lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 20-1532 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Moses Anthon Francisco lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________ Submitted: November 23, 2020 Filed: December 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Moses Francisco appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to immigration and firearm offenses--instituted by separate indictments--and his supervised release for a prior offense was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines, and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion; in determining whether to depart upward, court should consider nature and extent of criminal history); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors; this court must give due deference to district court’s determination that § 3553(a) factors justify upward variance). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's motions to withdraw. ______________________________ -3-
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.
