Filed: Nov. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2137 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Brandon Vazquez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison _ Submitted: November 15, 2018 Filed: November 27, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Brandon Vazquez directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2137 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Brandon Vazquez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison _ Submitted: November 15, 2018 Filed: November 27, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Brandon Vazquez directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2137
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Brandon Vazquez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
____________
Submitted: November 15, 2018
Filed: November 27, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Brandon Vazquez directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range
1
The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.
sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Vazquez’s sentence on substantive and
procedural grounds. We have carefully reviewed the district court’s sentencing
decision and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Moreover, we have independently reviewed the
record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and conclude there are no
nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-