United States v. Victor Varela-Arzola

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); [4331147-2] Granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Robert Kuchar and Appellant Mr. Victor Manuel Varela-Arzola. [4372559] [15-2776]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2776
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Victor Manuel Varela-Arzola, also known as Hector Varela, also known as Jose
Torres Varela, also known as Jose Torres, also known as Jose V. Torres, also
known as Victor Varela, also known as Many Vaarela, also known as Victor
Marin, also known as Hector Rodriguez
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: February 24, 2016
Filed: March 1, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 15-2776

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/01/2016 Entry ID: 4372559

Victor Varela-Arzola appeals after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense
and the District Court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), generally challenging Varela-Arzola’s sentence. Varela-Arzola has
filed a supplemental brief arguing—in reference to a supervised-release revocation
sentence imposed at the same hearing—that he should have received concurrent,
rather than consecutive, sentences.
After careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not commit any
significant procedural sentencing error or impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076–77 (8th Cir. 2012)
(discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Becker, 636
F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court has the discretion to impose a
sentence concurrently or consecutively based on the same [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
factors as other sentencing decisions.”). Furthermore, we have independently
reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no
nonfrivolous issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2776

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/01/2016 Entry ID: 4372559