United States v. Pedro Salazar-Trejo

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-3000

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Pedro Salazar-Trejo

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 24-3006

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Pedro Salazar-Trejo

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

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

____________

Submitted: February 20, 2025 Filed: February 27, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Pedro Salazar-Trejo appeals the sentences the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry and his supervised release for a prior offense was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentences as substantively unreasonable.

After reviewing the record, we conclude the district court did not impose substantively unreasonable sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007) (substantive reasonableness is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The sentences were within the statutory maximums, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3); and the sentences were also presumptively reasonable because they fell within the applicable advisory Guidelines ranges, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Lopez-Rodriguez, 313 Fed. Appx. 931, 932 (8th Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam). The court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.