United States of America v. Juan Carlos Cuevas-Alvarez

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2849
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Carlos Cuevas-Alvarez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 24-2850
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Carlos Cuevas-Alvarez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: January 21, 2025
Filed: February 13, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Mexican citizen Juan Carlos Cuevas-Alvarez
appeals after he pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been
deported for an aggravated felony, and stipulated in a separate case to violating his
terms of supervised release, and the district court1 ordered the new-conviction and
revocation sentences to run consecutively. Cuevas-Alvarez’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 imposition of consecutive sentences was substantively
unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the consecutive sentences. See United States v. Valure, 835
F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing decision to impose consecutive revocation
and new-offense sentences for abuse of discretion). The record demonstrates that the
court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584
(in considering whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences, district court
shall consider § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider
relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits
clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United States v.
1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Rodd, 966 F.3d 740, 747-48 (8th Cir. 2020) (disagreement with how court balanced
§ 3553(a) factors is insufficient ground for reversal; district court is not required to
mechanically recite sentencing factors, all that is generally required to satisfy
appellate court is evidence that district court was aware of them).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and affirm the judgment in both
cases.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --