United States v. Vanessa Vela, No. 21-1930 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in declining to impose a mitigating-role reduction. [ September 03, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1930 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Vanessa Vela lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: September 1, 2021 Filed: September 7, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Vanessa Vela appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to a drug offense. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a mitigating-role reduction. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in declining to apply a mitigating-role reduction, because unobjected-to facts in the presentence report (PSR) indicated that Vela coordinated deliveries of drugs, wired money for the drug conspiracy, and allowed drugs to be stored in her home. See United States v. Hunt, 840 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (standard of review); see also United States v. Menteer, 408 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unobjected-to facts in PSR are deemed admitted). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
