United States of America v. Orlandis Fred Murriel

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3679
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Orlandis Fred Murriel
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: July 5, 2024
Filed: July 11, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Orlandis Murriel appeals the within-Guidelines sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Murriel has filed a
pro se brief arguing that the district court erred in denying a downward variance, and
that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Murriel has also moved for
appointment of new counsel.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences
are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment
in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court considered Murriel’s motion for
a downward variance and concluded that a variance was not warranted. See United
States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (denial of downward variance was
substantively reasonable, as court considered arguments for downward variance and
exercised its discretion in rejecting them). We also conclude there is no merit to
Murriel’s argument that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. See United
States v. Contreras, 816 F.3d 502, 514 (8th Cir. 2016).
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
affirm, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we deny Murriel’s motion to appoint
new counsel.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --