UNITED STATES v. MATA BECERRA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-07-06No. No. 21-1426

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, finding the 51-month sentence substantively reasonable and granting counsel permission to withdraw.

Gabriel Mata-Becerra pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance and received a 51-month prison sentence. His appellate counsel filed an Anders brief arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable and requesting permission to withdraw. The court examined whether the sentencing fell within constitutional bounds by reviewing the district court's consideration of statutory sentencing factors and whether any improper considerations influenced the judgment.

The appellate court determined that the sentence was substantively reasonable. The district court had properly considered the required statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not rely on improper considerations or commit clear error in its sentencing decision. The court noted that once a trial judge has already imposed a sentence below the guideline range, it is unusual to find an abuse of discretion in declining to reduce it further.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the 51-month sentence for drug conspiracy was substantively unreasonable
Whether the district court properly considered statutory sentencing factors
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to impose a further downward variance

Procedural posture

Mata-Becerra appealed his sentence through counsel who sought withdrawal in an Anders brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the punishment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Gabriel Mata-Becerra received a 51-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Mata-Becerras counsel requests permission to withdraw and, in an Anders brief, suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm. We conclude that Mata-Becerras sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “it is nearly inconceivable” that once a district court has varied downward, it “abuse[s] its discretion in not varying downward [even] further” (quotation marks omitted)). The record establishes that the district court 1

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. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.