Filed: Oct. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1921 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Claudia Rodriguez-Larrain, also known as Claudia Solomon, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville _ Submitted: September 22, 2015 Filed: October 2, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Claudia Rodriguez-La
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1921 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Claudia Rodriguez-Larrain, also known as Claudia Solomon, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville _ Submitted: September 22, 2015 Filed: October 2, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Claudia Rodriguez-Lar..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1921
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Claudia Rodriguez-Larrain, also known as Claudia Solomon,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: September 22, 2015
Filed: October 2, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Claudia Rodriguez-Larrain directly appeals after she pled guilty to a loan-fraud
offense, and the district court1 sentenced her to a term of imprisonment below the
1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
calculated Guidelines range followed by a term of supervised release at the top of the
advisory and statutory ranges. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a
brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the term of
supervised release is substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-