United States v. Salvador Murillo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-3187
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3187 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Salvador Manjarrez Murillo

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: April 24, 2024 Filed: April 29, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Salvador Manjarrez Murillo appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to drug offenses. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient weight to Murillo’s mitigating history and characteristics. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624, 625 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). There is no indication that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (considerations for reasonableness of sentence); United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (where defendant was sentenced below Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that district court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further).

The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-