United States v. Darling Mejia-Molina


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Michael J. Melloy and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); [3935196-2] -- Granting motion to withdraw as counsel, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari, filed by Mr. John B. Schisler. [3991713] [12-2470]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2470 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Darling Antonio Mejia-Molina lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: December 21, 2012 Filed: January 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Darling Mejia-Molina appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to knowing receipt of child pornography. On 1 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 12-2470 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2013 Entry ID: 3991713 appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness of Mejia-Molina’s sentence, and suggesting that the court did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court committed no significant procedural error, properly considered and weighed appropriate sentencing factors, and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court’s review of sentence for abuse of discretion includes (1) ensuring no significant procedural error occurred, and (2) considering substantive reasonableness of sentence under totality of circumstances; court abuses discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to irrelevant or improper factor, or considers appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness). Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mejia-Molina about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-2470 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2013 Entry ID: 3991713

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?