United States v. Jose Coronado-Rubio

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 24-2354
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2354 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jose Luis Coronado-Rubio, also known as John Arthur Diaz

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: February 4, 2025 Filed: February 7, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Luis Coronado-Rubio appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry to the United States after he was previously

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. deported. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that his sentence--an upward departure from the Guidelines range--is substantively unreasonable.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 comment. (n.6); United States v. Cook, 615 F.3d 891, 892 (8th Cir. 2010) (decision to depart upward reviewed for abuse of discretion). We also conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Ruvalcava-Perez, 561 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2009) (departure sentence reviewed for reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (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); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information in consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Berni, 439 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (sentence involving departure was reasonable where district court properly calculated Guidelines range, permissibly applied departure, and took resulting range and departure into account along with other § 3553(a) factors to arrive at sentence).

Further, 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 leave to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-