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)
22-3115•United States of America v. Salvador Manjarrez Murillo
22-3115Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitApr 30, 2024
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3187
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Salvador Manjarrez Murillo
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: April 24, 2024
Filed: April 29, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Salvador Manjarrez Murillo appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the
district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to drug offenses. Counsel has moved for
leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court
gave insufficient weight to Murillo’s mitigating history and characteristics. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See
United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624, 625 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
There is no indication that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (considerations for reasonableness of
sentence); United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016)
(where defendant was sentenced below Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable
that district court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further).
The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.