United States of America v. Larry Jesus Navarete, also known as Larry Navarrete, also known as NICA

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2294
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Larry Jesus Navarete, also known as Larry Navarrete, also known as NICA
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: April 23, 2018
Filed: April 26, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Larry Navarete challenges the sentence the district
court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved to1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
considering whether the sentence was procedurally unsound, substantively
unreasonable, or otherwise illegally imposed.
After careful review, we conclude that no procedural error occurred, and any
such error would have been harmless because the district court stated that it would
have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained Navarete’s objections. See
United States v. LaRoche, 700 F.3d 363, 365 (8th Cir. 2012). We further conclude
that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as there was no
indication that it overlooked a relevant section 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor, or committed
a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. David, 682
F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651
F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was within the Guidelines range, see
United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --