United States of America v. Victor Alfonso Leon-Pacheco

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3663
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Victor Alfonso Leon-Pacheco
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: November 26, 2024
Filed: December 3, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Victor Leon-Pacheco appeals after a jury found him guilty of drug charges and
the district court1 sentenced him to 360 months in prison. His counsel has moved to
1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

withdraw, and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 38 (1967),
arguing that the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence, that the district
court erred in determining that Leon-Pacheco was a career offender, and that the
within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the government presented
sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury’s guilty verdict. See United States v.
Reichel, 911 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2018). We also conclude that the district
court did not err in ruling that Leon-Pacheco was a career offender. See United States
v. Rivera, 76 F.4th 1085, 1088-91 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v.
Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691, 692-94 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Further, the
sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable, as the record reflects that the
court properly calculated the Guidelines range and considered the appropriate
sentencing factors. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
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 leave to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --