United States v. Eduwijes Cervantes-Mendoza

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-1307 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eduwijes Cervantes-Mendoza

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: August 22, 2019 Filed: August 27, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Eduwijes Cervantes-Mendoza appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, and the district court1 sentenced him below the calculated United States Sentencing

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred by holding Cervantes-Mendoza accountable for methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator’s vehicle, and the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

First, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in holding Cervantes- Mendoza accountable for methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator’s vehicle. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (noting in cases of jointly undertaken criminal activity in concert with others, a defendant is responsible for conduct (1) within scope of the activity, (2) in furtherance of the activity, and (3) reasonably foreseeable); see also United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513, 533 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing for clear error district court’s findings as to the scope, furtherance, and foreseeability). Second, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________

-2-