United States v. Luis Preciado


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4200007-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. John D. Jacobsen. [4241078] [14-2889]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2889 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Luis Chavez Preciado, also known as Luis Fernando Chavez Preciado lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: February 4, 2015 Filed: February 4, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Luis Chavez Preciado directly appeals the district court’s1 sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 14-2889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Entry ID: 4241078 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. At sentencing, the court granted the parties’ joint request for a downward variance based on an anticipated amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines; but denied Chavez’s separate motion for an additional downward variance. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the 151-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because, as an alien, Chavez is ineligible for Bureau of Prisons programs that could potentially result in early release from prison, and a 120-month sentence would have adequately accomplished the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing goals. After careful review, this court affirms. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (this court reviews sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court considered the relevant section 3553(a) factors during sentencing, and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (outlining substantivereasonableness test); Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464 (substantive review is narrow and deferential to sentencing court); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (if district court varies downward from presumptively reasonable Guidelines recommendation, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion by not varying downward further). An independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 14-2889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Entry ID: 4241078

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?