United States of America v. Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3167
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 22-3173
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: February 6, 2023
Filed: February 9, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Rodriguez-Chavez appeals the sentences
the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry and his
supervised release was revoked. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences
are substantively unreasonable, when considered individually and in combination.
After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
910, 915-16, 917 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude the district court did not impose
substantively unreasonable sentences. The sentences were within the statutory
maximums, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), and the revocation
sentence was also presumptively reasonable because it fell within the applicable
advisory range under the sentencing guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United
States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). The court considered the
statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in
weighing relevant factors, including those discussed in the Anders brief. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc). Although the court gave those factors less weight than
Rodriguez-Chavez preferred, it acted within its wide discretion. See United States
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

v. Hernandez-Pineda, 849 F.3d 769, 771-73 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Clayton,
828 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th
Cir. 2009). 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 affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw in both cases.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --