United States of America v. Alfredo Vladimir Andrad Medina, also known as Samuel Garcia Andrade, also known as…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3543
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alfredo Vladimir Andrad Medina, also known as Samuel Garcia Andrade, also
known as Vladimir Andrade, also known as Edgar Aldair Cobos Diaz, also known
as Jesus Lopez, also known as Alfredo Andrade Medina, also known as Moises
Cortez Lopez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: February 15, 2024
Filed: February 21, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Alfredo Medina appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence was unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing
sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor,
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error
of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a
sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119,
1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the
Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in
not varying further).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --