United States of America v. Jose Luis Coronado-Rubio, also known as John Arthur Diaz

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2354
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jose Luis Coronado-Rubio, also known as John Arthur Diaz
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: February 4, 2025
Filed: February 7, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jose Luis Coronado-Rubio appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pled guilty to illegal reentry to the United States after he was previously
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

deported. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that his sentence--an upward departure from
the Guidelines range--is substantively unreasonable.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in departing upward. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 comment. (n.6);
United States v. Cook, 615 F.3d 891, 892 (8th Cir. 2010) (decision to depart upward
reviewed for abuse of discretion). We also conclude that the sentence is substantively
reasonable. See United States v. Ruvalcava-Perez, 561 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2009)
(departure sentence reviewed for reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion standard);
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse
of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant
weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in
weighing appropriate factors); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.
2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented,
addressing defendant’s proffered information in consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Berni, 439 F.3d 990, 993 (8th
Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (sentence involving departure was reasonable where district
court properly calculated Guidelines range, permissibly applied departure, and took
resulting range and departure into account along with other § 3553(a) factors to arrive
at sentence).
Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --