United States v. Eduardo Garcia Rios

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 27, 2024
Docket23-2878
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Eduardo Garcia Rios (United States v. Eduardo Garcia Rios) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Eduardo Garcia Rios, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-2878 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eduardo Garcia Rios

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ____________

Submitted: March 20, 2024 Filed: March 27, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Eduardo Garcia Rios appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to

1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s refusal to apply a mitigating-role reduction and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply a mitigating-role reduction. See United States v. Garcia, 946 F.3d 413, 418-19 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing district court’s refusal to apply mitigating-role reduction for clear error). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Garcia Rios. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting when a district court has varied below the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion by not varying downward further).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Eric McCauley
715 F.3d 1119 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jose Garcia
946 F.3d 413 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Eduardo Garcia Rios, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eduardo-garcia-rios-ca8-2024.