United States v. Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso

427 F. App'x 548

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 2011

Docket11-1968

StatusUnpublished

This text of 427 F. App'x 548 (United States v. Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso) 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. Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso, 427 F. App'x 548 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso appeals from the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to distributing and aiding and abetting in the distribution of 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Chapelli-Pedroso, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Valadez, 573 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (sentence at bottom of Guidelines range is presumed reasonable). Nothing in the record indi *549 cates that the district court failed to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 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. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Yordan Chapelli-Pedroso appeals from the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to distributing and aiding and abetting in the distribution of 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Chapelli-Pedroso, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Valadez, 573 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (sentence at bottom of Guidelines range is presumed reasonable). Nothing in the record indi *549 cates that the district court failed to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 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. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 F. App'x 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-yordan-chapelli-pedroso-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack