United States of America v. Roberto Esquivias-Sandoval, also known as Luis Manuel Zamora Briseno, also known as…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1759
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Roberto Esquivias-Sandoval, also known as Luis Manuel Zamora Briseno, also
known as Pedro Esquivias
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: December 18, 2024
Filed: December 23, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After pleading guilty to illegally reentering the United States and conspiring
to distribute controlled substances, Roberto Esquivias-Sandoval received a 158-
month prison sentence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), (viii), (B)(vi), 846. An Anders brief suggests he should not have

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
received a drug-premises enhancement or a lengthy sentence. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
We conclude otherwise. Evidence of drug sales at Esquivias-Sandoval’s
home supported the finding that he “maintained a premises for the purposes of . . .
distributing . . . controlled substance[s].” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12); see United
States v. Armstrong, 60 F.4th 1151, 1169 (8th Cir. 2023); see also United States v.
Sykes, 854 F.3d 457, 459, 461 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that a handful of sales, plus
circumstantial evidence like cash and packaging materials, was enough). Then,
based on that finding, the district court1 calculated the advisory range, selected a
sentence, and explained its reasoning. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence for an
abuse of discretion). In doing so, it sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing
factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a
clear error of judgment. See United States v. Noriega, 35 F.4th 643, 652 (8th Cir.
2022) (stating that “reversal is not appropriate simply because the district court did
not weigh the § 3553(a) factors as [the defendant] preferred”).
We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other
non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission
to withdraw.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 2 --