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)
23-3502•United States of America v. Jesus Everardo Medina
23-3502Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitAug 29, 2025
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1586
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jesus Everardo Medina
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: August 7, 2025
Filed: August 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jesus Medina appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), arguing that Medina’s sentence is substantively 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 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are
reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; 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). Further, the court imposed a sentence within the
Guidelines range. See United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008)
(appellate court may presume sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range
is reasonable).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel leave to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.