Filed: Apr. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3774 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Hector Vega-Martinez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque _ Submitted: April 21, 2017 Filed: April 26, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Hector Vega-Martinez directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to identity-t
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3774 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Hector Vega-Martinez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque _ Submitted: April 21, 2017 Filed: April 26, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Hector Vega-Martinez directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to identity-th..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3774
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Hector Vega-Martinez
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque
____________
Submitted: April 21, 2017
Filed: April 26, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Hector Vega-Martinez directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to identity-theft
charges, and the district court1 sentenced him to a within-Guidelines-range prison
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
term and supervised release with special conditions. On appeal, Vega-Martinez’s
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court plainly erred in
imposing an alcohol ban as a special condition of supervised release.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the imposition of the unobjected-to
alcohol ban was not plain error. See United States v. Wisecarver,
644 F.3d 764, 775
(8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed
the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no
non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,
and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-