United States v. Alfredo Medina

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 21, 2024
• Docket: 23-3543
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3543 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alfredo Vladimir Andrad Medina, also known as Samuel Garcia Andrade, also known as Vladimir Andrade, also known as Edgar Aldair Cobos Diaz, also known as Jesus Lopez, also known as Alfredo Andrade Medina, also known as Moises Cortez Lopez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: February 15, 2024 Filed: February 21, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Alfredo Medina appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-