United States v. Sergio Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2020
• Docket: 19-2542
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-2542 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Sergio Sanchez Gonzalez,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

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

Submitted: April 9, 2020 Filed: April 20, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Sergio Sanchez Gonzalez appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry to the United States after he was previously

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. deported. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

To the extent Sanchez Gonzalez’s argument implies that the district court erred in failing to grant a downward departure, we conclude that because the district court was aware of its authority to depart downward, its discretionary decision not to do so is unreviewable. See United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912, 919 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________

-2-