United States of America v. Freddy Ciro Salinas, also known as Freddie Cero Salinas

22-2927Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit29 sept. 2023

Texte intégral

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3655
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Freddy Ciro Salinas, also known as Freddie Cero Salinas
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: September 1, 2023
Filed: September 7, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Freddy Salinas appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, and the
district court1 sentenced him to 71 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of
1The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred
in calculating the Guidelines imprisonment range.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude any error in calculating Salinas’s
Guidelines range was harmless. See United States v. Wardlow, 830 F.3d 817, 822
(8th Cir. 2016) (explaining the standard of review). The district court adequately
explained why the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence, and concluded
it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of how it resolved Salinas’s
challenge to the calculation of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Hamilton,
929 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir. 2019) (concluding any Guidelines miscalculation was
harmless when the district court stated it imposed the sentence based on the § 3553(a)
factors, “regardless of the calculation of the sentencing guidelines”). Finally, we
have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),
and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.