The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-3428•United States of America v. Gerardo Lopez-Martinez, also known as Eduardo Espinoza
14-3428Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitFeb 26, 2016
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2969
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gerardo Lopez-Martinez, also known as Eduardo Espinoza
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque
____________
Submitted: January 8, 2016
Filed: February 2, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gerardo Lopez-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty
to unlawful use of an identification document and misuse of a social security number.
-- 1 of 2 --
The district court sentenced him to time served and 3 years of supervised release.1
Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), argues that the court committed plain procedural error by failing to
adequately explain the reasons for Lopez-Martinez’s sentence, and that the sentence
is substantively unreasonable.
“We will not sustain a procedural challenge to the district court’s discussion
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors by a defendant who did not object to
the adequacy of the court’s explanation at sentencing.” United States v. Maxwell,
778 F.3d 719, 734 (8th Cir. 2015). Further, nothing in the record indicates that the
court overlooked a relevant sentencing factor, considered an improper factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment, in fashioning Lopez-Martinez’s sentence. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness of sentence). Finally,
having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.
The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge of the United States District1
Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.