United States v. Antonio Escobar, No. 20-1664 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not plainly err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal as his prior drug convictions qualified as predicate offenses for purposes of the ACCA; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1664 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Escobar Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: November 30, 2020 Filed: December 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Escobar appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court1 sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 180 months in prison. 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Escobar’s prior drug convictions do not qualify as predicate offenses for purposes of the ACCA, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not plainly err in sentencing Escobar as an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (felon in possession who has three previous convictions for “serious drug offense” shall be imprisoned not less than 15 years); United States v. Coleman, 918 F.3d 592, 593 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (to demonstrate plain error defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious under current law, (3) which affected his substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings). The sentence is not substantively unreasonable because the record reflects that the district court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and imposed the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (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 factor); United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines sentence is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal); United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013) (statutory minimum sentence was not substantively unreasonable). This court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no other nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
