United States v. Joaquin Lopez-Casa



Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2931 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Joaquin Lopez-Casas, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: January 6, 2011 Filed: January 11, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Joaquin Lopez-Casas appeals the 151-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing cocaine hydrochloride with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 10-2931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2011 Entry ID: 3743250 We find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress. The evidence at the suppression hearing showed that Lopez-Casas consented to each part of the search, and there was no evidence of coercion. See United States v. Luken, 560 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 2009) (consensual searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Siwek, 453 F.3d 1079, 1084 (8th Cir. 2006) (consent to a search is voluntary unless it was a product of duress or coercion); United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). We also find that the district court did not clearly err in denying a minor-role reduction because it was undisputed that Lopez-Casas agreed to drive money from New York to California and return with drugs. See United States v. Adamson, 608 F.3d 1049, 1053-54 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review; defendant’s role in offense is measured in comparison to other participants; no role reduction for defendant who transported large amounts of drugs and money). Furthermore, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Lopez-Casas and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 10-2931 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2011 Entry ID: 3743250

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?