United States v. Alejandro Lopez-Zenteno


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, PASCO M. BOWMAN and DUANE BENTON Granting [3841676-2] Counsel Ms. Manvir Kaur Atwal's motion to withdraw is granted. (UNPUBLISHED) [3903560] [11-2736]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2736 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Alejandro Lopez-Zenteno, also known * as Alex Lopez, also known as Jose * [UNPUBLISHED] Ramirez Perez, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: April 19, 2012 Filed: April 23, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Alejandro Lopez-Zenteno appeals the 24-month prison sentence imposed upon him by the district court1 after he pled guilty to unlawful re-entry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202 and 557. After calculating an advisory Guidelines range of 46-57 months in prison, the district court considered the mitigating factors presented by Lopez-Zenteno – most specifically, 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Appellate Case: 11-2736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2012 Entry ID: 3903560 that he had demonstrated positive change – and sentenced Lopez-Zenteno below the Guidelines range, to 24 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. LopezZenteno’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), and seeks leave to withdraw. Counsel argues that the district court’s sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing and therefore was substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Elodio-Benitez, 2012 WL 686194, at *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 5, 2012) (rejecting substantive reasonableness challenge to “significant downward variance” in sentencing illegal re-entry defendant). As noted in Elodio-Benitez, “‘where a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.’” See id. (quoting United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009)). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for review. The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-2736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2012 Entry ID: 3903560

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?