United States of America v. Rodolfo Urieta-Barba

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3323
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rodolfo Urieta-Barba
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: July 22, 2026
Filed: July 27, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Rodolfo Urieta-Barba appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. He argues the court failed to
1The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

adequately explain his sentence, placed too little weight on mitigating factors, and
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Urieta-Barba. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that, in reviewing the imposition of a sentence, this
court first ensures that there was no significant procedural error, then considers the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the totality of the circumstances).
First, we discern no plain procedural error in the explanation for Urieta-Barba’s
sentence, as the court stated it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
adopted the pre-sentence report, and heard counsel’s mitigating arguments. See
United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (clarifying that a
procedural challenge is reviewed for plain error when the defendant did not object at
sentencing); see also United States v. Hunt, 840 F.3d 554, 558 (8th Cir. 2016)
(holding that because the court ruled on the pre-sentence report, heard the parties’
arguments, and cited the § 3553(a) factors, its explanation was adequate). Next,
Urieta-Barba’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court
properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, including Urieta-Barba’s mitigating
arguments, and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See Feemster,
572 F.3d at 461-62 (explaining substantive reasonableness); see also United States
v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that a Guidelines-range
sentence is presumed reasonable).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --