United States v. Freddy Salinas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-3655
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3655 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Freddy Ciro Salinas, also known as Freddie Cero Salinas

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: September 1, 2023 Filed: September 7, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Freddy Salinas appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, and the district court1 sentenced him to 71 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of

1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred in calculating the Guidelines imprisonment range.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude any error in calculating Salinas’s Guidelines range was harmless. See United States v. Wardlow, 830 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining the standard of review). The district court adequately explained why the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence, and concluded it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of how it resolved Salinas’s challenge to the calculation of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir. 2019) (concluding any Guidelines miscalculation was harmless when the district court stated it imposed the sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors, “regardless of the calculation of the sentencing guidelines”). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-