Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-1918•United States of America v. Joel Ochoa-Gonzalez
12-1918Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30.04.2013
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2992
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joel Ochoa-Gonzalez
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: March 20, 2013
Filed: April 1, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joel Ochoa-Gonzales directly appeals the 168-month prison sentence the
district court imposed after he pled guilty to a drug charge. His counsel moved to1
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District1
of Nebraska.
-- 1 of 2 --
withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing
that the district court abused its discretion because the sentence was greater than
necessary to meet the goals of sentencing.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. The record reflects no
procedural error, and the sentence – which was below the advisory Guidelines range
– is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures that no
significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of
sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Elodio-Benitez, 672
F.3d 584, 586 (8th Cir. 2012) (“‘where a district court has sentenced a defendant
below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused
its discretion in not varying downward still further’” (quoting United States v. Moore,
581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009))).
After an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.