United States of America v. Juan Manuel Simental-Lopez, also known as Manuel Encee, also known as Juan Manuel Encee

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3345
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Manuel Simental-Lopez, also known as Manuel Encee, also known as Juan
Manuel Encee
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3347
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Manuel Simental-Lopez, also known as Manuel Encee, also known as Juan
Manuel Encee
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: May 31, 2018
Filed: June 25, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Juan Manuel Simental-Lopez challenges the
Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to being1
a felon in possession of a firearm, and possessing with intent to distribute
methamphetamine; and he challenges the consecutive below-Guidelines sentence the
district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Simental-Lopez’s
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences are substantively
unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence for either the new convictions or the revocation.
See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
(revocation sentencing decisions are reviewed under same standards as initial
sentencing decisions; substantive reasonableness of sentences are reviewed for abuse
of discretion). The record reflects that, in determining the sentence for the new
convictions, the court carefully considered and discussed relevant 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing
substantive reasonableness; appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness
The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the1
District of Nebraska.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

to Guidelines-range sentence). As to the revocation sentence, the consecutive 12-
month sentence was below both the statutory limit and the revocation Guidelines
range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (24-month maximum revocation sentence when
original conviction was Class C felony); U.S.S.G. §7B1.4(a) (range is 18-24 months
for Grade A violation with Category III criminal history); see also United States v.
Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that when court imposed
below-Guidelines-range sentence, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its
discretion in not varying downward still further).
An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to
withdraw, and we affirm both sentences.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --