United States of America v. Ernesto Leyva

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3005
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ernesto Leyva
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: June 17, 2026
Filed: June 23, 2026
[Unpublished]
_____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
_____________
PER CURIAM.
Ernesto Leyva appeals the judgment entered and the sentence imposed by the
district court1 after a jury found him guilty of a drug conspiracy offense. His counsel
1 The Honorable Susan M. Bazis, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Before trial, Leyva moved to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant. The
district court denied the motion, and Leyva challenges that ruling on appeal. This
court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion. See United States v. Sierra, 94 F.4th 721, 727 (8th Cir. 2024) (standard of
review). Leyva also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon careful
review, this court concludes that the jurors had sufficient evidence to find Leyva
guilty of a conspiracy offense involving at least 100 grams of fentanyl analogue
mixture. See United States v. Oliver, 90 F.4th 1222, 1224–25 (8th Cir. 2024).
This court rejects Leyva’s argument that the district court erred by allowing
testimony regarding his possession of firearms. See United States v. Adamson, 608
F.3d 1049, 1055 (8th Cir. 2010). Leyva’s arguments challenging the Guidelines
calculations also fail. The district court did not plainly err in determining the drug
quantity. See United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942, 946 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard
of review). Further, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Leyva
possessed a firearm in connection with the offense and that he maintained a drug
premises. See United States v. Torres, 409 F.3d 1000, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005); United
States v. Clark, 135 F.4th 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2025).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --