United States v. Joel Ochoa-Gonzalez , 500 F. App'x 561 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 12-2992
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Joel Ochoa-Gonzalez
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
    ____________
    Submitted: March 20, 2013
    Filed: April 1, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Joel Ochoa-Gonzales directly appeals the 168-month prison sentence the
    district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug charge. His counsel moved to
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing
    that the district court abused its discretion because the sentence was greater than
    necessary to meet the goals of sentencing.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion. The record reflects no
    procedural error, and the sentence – which was below the advisory Guidelines range
    – is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461
    (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures that no
    significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of
    sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Elodio-Benitez, 
    672 F.3d 584
    , 586 (8th Cir. 2012) (“‘where a district court has sentenced a defendant
    below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused
    its discretion in not varying downward still further’” (quoting United States v. Moore,
    
    581 F.3d 681
    , 684 (8th Cir. 2009))).
    After an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion to
    withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2992

Citation Numbers: 500 F. App'x 561

Judges: Benton, Loken, Melloy, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/1/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023