United States of America v. Trista Marie Espinoza

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3058
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Trista Marie Espinoza
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge
____________
Submitted: June 24, 2013
Filed: July 18, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Trista Espinoza directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed upon1
granting the government’s motion for a downward departure under 18 U.S.C.
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for1
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, based upon Espinoza’s substantial assistance. Her
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court – after granting the government’s
downward-departure motion and reducing Espinoza’s sentence below the statutory
minimum – should have considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors unrelated to her
substantial assistance, in order to reduce her sentence further. Espinoza also has a
pending motion for appointment of new counsel.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that counsel’s argument is
unavailing. See United States v. Billue, 576 F.3d 898, 902-04 (8th Cir. 2009) (in
discussing district court’s limited authority under § 3553(e) and § 5K1.1 to impose
sentence below statutory minimum, emphasizing that, in ruling on government’s
downward-departure motion based on substantial assistance, court may consider only
factors related to defendant’s substantial assistance to government, and that, upon
reducing sentence below statutory minimum, court may not use § 3553(a) factors to
decrease sentence further). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, Espinoza’s motion for appointment
of counsel is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --