United States of America v. Anthony Guadalupe Olguin, also known as Chano

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3306
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Anthony Guadalupe Olguin, also known as Chano
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: July 22, 2026
Filed: July 27, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Olguin appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pled guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as there is no indication the court failed to
consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the proper factors. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing
sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive
reasonableness); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir.
2013) (when district court varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable”
that the court abused its discretion by not varying further); United States v. Farmer,
647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 2011) (simply because district court weighed factors
more heavily than defendant preferred does not mean the court abused its discretion).
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 grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --