Filed: Nov. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1715 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Guillermo Chan Sanchez, also known as Guillermo Sanchez Chan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: November 1, 2017 Filed: November 9, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Guillermo Chan Sanchez direc
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1715 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Guillermo Chan Sanchez, also known as Guillermo Sanchez Chan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: November 1, 2017 Filed: November 9, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Guillermo Chan Sanchez direct..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1715
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Guillermo Chan Sanchez, also known as Guillermo Sanchez Chan
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: November 1, 2017
Filed: November 9, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guillermo Chan Sanchez directly appeals the sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to immigration and drug offenses. His counsel has
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386
U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman,
741 F.3d
878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). In
addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S.
75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-