United States v. Jesus Medina

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 25-1586
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1586 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jesus Everardo Medina

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: August 7, 2025 Filed: August 12, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Medina appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Medina’s sentence is substantively 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 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may presume sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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-