United States of America v. Roberto Ivan Villasenor

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1188
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Roberto Ivan Villasenor
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: July 8, 2024
Filed: July 11, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Villasenor appeals after he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex
offender. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable. Villasenor has filed a supplemental pro se brief, arguing that the

-- 1 of 3 --

district court1 erred in considering prior state convictions, that the instant conviction
was invalid because it was predicated on an invalid state conviction, and that his
federally appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
considering his underlying lascivious-acts conviction or in assessing criminal history
points based on it because the record does not indicate that it was reversed, vacated,
or invalidated. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 n.6; United States v. Moore, 245 F.3d 1023,
1025 (8th Cir. 2001). While Villasenor argues that this conviction was invalid
because he did not have effective assistance of counsel, this challenge amounts to an
improper collateral attack on a prior state conviction, and the record indicates that he
had counsel during the state proceedings. See Moore, 245 F.3d at 1026; United
States v. Valdez, 146 F.3d 547, 552-53 (8th Cir. 1998). As to Villasenor’s juvenile
adjudication, no criminal history points were assessed, and the record does not show
that the court considered it in imposing the sentence. As to Villasenor’s argument
that his instant conviction is invalid because the underlying state conviction was
invalid, neither the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, nor the statute of
conviction, permit such collateral attacks. See United States v. Diaz, 967 F.3d 107,
109 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam); cf. Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 490-97
(1994).
We further conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as the
record reflects that the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range and
considered the sentencing factors, and there is no indication the court overlooked a
relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors.
See United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010); United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Villasenor’s argument
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

that his federally appointed counsel was ineffective is not ripe for review, as the
record is undeveloped. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-
27 (8th Cir. 2006).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --