United States of America v. Jesus Guadalupe Herrera Machaca

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1187
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jesus Guadalupe Herrera Machaca
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: September 4, 2015
Filed: September 10, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jesus Guadalupe Herrera Machaca appeals the below-Guidelines-range
sentence that the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a federal drug1
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for1
the District of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

conspiracy charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, and also states that appellant wishes to challenge the
district court’s Guidelines calculations on drug quantity and role in the offense.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively
unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (abuse-of-discretion review); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731,
733 (8th Cir. 2009). As to drug quantity and role in the offense, four days before the
sentencing hearing, appellant withdrew his request for an evidentiary hearing on these
matters in return for the government’s agreement to a base offense level and role
enhancement that defense counsel stipulated--in open court at sentencing--that the
government could support with proof. Accordingly, we will not consider any drug-
quantity or role challenge in this appeal. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
733 (1993); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). Finally,
having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), and having considered Machaca’s pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that
there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --