Filed: Nov. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2683 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jose Alejandro Vazquez-Pacheco, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids _ Submitted: November 6, 2015 Filed: November 17, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jose Vazquez-Pacheco directly appeals after he pl
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2683 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jose Alejandro Vazquez-Pacheco, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids _ Submitted: November 6, 2015 Filed: November 17, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jose Vazquez-Pacheco directly appeals after he ple..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2683
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Jose Alejandro Vazquez-Pacheco,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: November 6, 2015
Filed: November 17, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jose Vazquez-Pacheco directly appeals after he pled guilty to illegally
reentering the United States, and the district court1 sentenced him within his
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
calculated Guidelines range to 16 months in prison. His counsel has filed a brief
under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Counsel has also moved to
withdraw.
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). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson
v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-