United States of America v. Pedro Salazar-Trejo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3000
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Pedro Salazar-Trejo
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 24-3006
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Pedro Salazar-Trejo
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: February 20, 2025
Filed: February 27, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Pedro Salazar-Trejo appeals the sentences the
district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry and his supervised
release for a prior offense was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentences as substantively unreasonable.
After reviewing the record, we conclude the district court did not impose
substantively unreasonable sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51
(2007) (substantive reasonableness is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard). The sentences were within the statutory maximums, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3); and the sentences were also presumptively
reasonable because they fell within the applicable advisory Guidelines ranges, see
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Lopez-Rodriguez, 313 Fed. Appx. 931, 932 (8th Cir. 2009)
(unpublished per curiam). The court considered the statutory sentencing factors and
did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --