United States v. Victor Leon-Pacheco

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3663

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Victor Alfonso Leon-Pacheco

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western

____________

Submitted: November 26, 2024 Filed: December 3, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Leon-Pacheco appeals after a jury found him guilty of drug charges and the district court1 sentenced him to 360 months in prison. His counsel has moved to

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

withdraw, and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 38 (1967), arguing that the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence, that the district court erred in determining that Leon-Pacheco was a career offender, and that the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury’s guilty verdict. See United States v. Reichel, 911 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2018). We also conclude that the district court did not err in ruling that Leon-Pacheco was a career offender. See United States v. Rivera, 76 F.4th 1085, 1088-91 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v. Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691, 692-94 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Further, the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable, as the record reflects that the court properly calculated the Guidelines range and considered the appropriate sentencing factors. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________