United States v. Epifanio Sanchez

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4396824-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Heather Quick. [4457702] [16-1817]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1817
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Epifanio Sanchez Sanchez
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: September 27, 2016
Filed: October 12, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Epifanio S. Sanchez pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, or possess
with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The district court1
1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 16-1817

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Entry ID: 4457702

sentenced him to 120 months in prison, in accordance with a plea agreement
stipulating that the government would not seek a sentence exceeding 120 months, but
that Sanchez could seek a lower sentence. Sanchez appeals, arguing the sentence is
unreasonable based on his circumstances. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court properly
considered and individually assessed several 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United
States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion occurs
where sentencing court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or
considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing
them); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court
need not mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from record that
court actually considered them in determining sentence); United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion standard). The
sentence imposed by the district court was lower than the bottom of the advisory
Guidelines range. See United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam) (“[W]here 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.”). An independent review of the record under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues outside the scope
of the appeal waiver.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1817

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/12/2016 Entry ID: 4457702