United States v. Elmer Martinez-Niz

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 25, 2019
Docket18-3516
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Elmer Martinez-Niz (United States v. Elmer Martinez-Niz) 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. Elmer Martinez-Niz, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3516 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Elmer Martinez-Niz

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________

Submitted: April 10, 2019 Filed: April 25, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Elmer Martinez-Niz, a citizen of Guatemala, pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the District Court1 sentenced him to ten months in prison and

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. one year of supervised release. Martinez-Niz appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as unreasonable.

After review, we have determined that the District Court properly considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076–77 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that a sentence within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range “is presumed to be reasonable”).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have identified no non-frivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel’s motion 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. Kirby David
682 F.3d 1074 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Callaway
762 F.3d 754 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Elmer Martinez-Niz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-elmer-martinez-niz-ca8-2019.