United States v. Magali Marroquin

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 14, 2018
Docket17-3541
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Magali Marroquin (United States v. Magali Marroquin) 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. Magali Marroquin, (8th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 17-3541 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Magali Marroquin, also known as Tiffany

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: December 7, 2018 Filed: December 14, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Magali Marroquin directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to identity-theft offenses. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Marroquin has not filed a pro se brief.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Marroquin’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Magnum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that upward variance was reasonable where court made individualized assessment of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented and considered defendant’s proffered information); United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding denial of downward variance was substantively reasonable, as court considered arguments for downward variance and exercised its discretion in rejecting them). 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-

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. Mangum
625 F.3d 466 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Lewis
593 F.3d 765 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Magali Marroquin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-magali-marroquin-ca8-2018.