United States of America v. Eduwijes Cervantes-Mendoza

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-1307
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Eduwijes Cervantes-Mendoza
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: August 22, 2019
Filed: August 27, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Eduwijes Cervantes-Mendoza appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense,
and the district court sentenced him below the calculated United States Sentencing1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred by
holding Cervantes-Mendoza accountable for methamphetamine seized from a
co-conspirator’s vehicle, and the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable
sentence.
First, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in holding Cervantes-
Mendoza accountable for methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator’s vehicle.
See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (noting in cases of jointly undertaken criminal activity
in concert with others, a defendant is responsible for conduct (1) within scope of the
activity, (2) in furtherance of the activity, and (3) reasonably foreseeable); see also
United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513, 533 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing for clear
error district court’s findings as to the scope, furtherance, and foreseeability).
Second, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and
discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed
the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --