United States v. Snofawn Torres-Webber

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Pasco M. Bowman and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4290849-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. John D. Jacobsen. [4354483] [15-2012]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2012
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Snofawn Torres-Webber
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: December 25, 2015
Filed: January 11, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Snofawn Torres-Webber appeals from the sentence imposed by the District
Court after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit robbery. Her counsel has
1

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-2012

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/11/2016 Entry ID: 4354483

moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that the sentence and conditions of supervised release are
unreasonable. We conclude that the within-Guidelines sentence is not substantively
unreasonable. United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2012) (standards
of review). Because Torres-Webber did not object to the conditions of supervised
release at sentencing, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Simons,
614 F.3d 475, 478 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). There is no such
error. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (noting that additional conditions of supervised release
must be “reasonably related” to certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, involve “no
greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary,” and be consistent with any
relevant Sentencing Commission policy statements). We have reviewed the record
independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous
issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2012

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/11/2016 Entry ID: 4354483