Filed: Oct. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1903 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Daniel Flores Reydondo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: October 5, 2017 Filed: October 11, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Daniel Flores Reydondo directly appeals after he pled guilty to a
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1903 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Daniel Flores Reydondo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: October 5, 2017 Filed: October 11, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Daniel Flores Reydondo directly appeals after he pled guilty to an..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1903
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Daniel Flores Reydondo
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: October 5, 2017
Filed: October 11, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Flores Reydondo directly appeals after he pled guilty to an immigration
offense and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term at the high end of the
1
The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
calculated guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence is unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; if sentence is
within guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply
presumption of reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the
record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we
affirm.
______________________________
-2-