United States v. Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez, No. 22-3173 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam -Before Shepherd, Erickson, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's sentences for his new criminal offense and for violation of the provisions of his supervised release were not substantively unreasonable, whether considered individually or in combination. [ February 08, 2023 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3167 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 22-3173 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________ Submitted: February 6, 2023 Filed: February 9, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez appeals the sentences the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry and his supervised release was revoked. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences are substantively unreasonable, when considered individually and in combination. After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16, 917 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude the district court did not impose substantively unreasonable sentences. The sentences were within the statutory maximums, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), and the revocation sentence was also presumptively reasonable because it fell within the applicable advisory range under the sentencing guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). The court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, including those discussed in the Anders brief. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Although the court gave those factors less weight than Rodriguez-Chavez preferred, it acted within its wide discretion. See United States 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- v. Hernandez-Pineda, 849 F.3d 769, 771-73 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Clayton, 828 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw in both cases. ______________________________ -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.
