UNITED STATES v. AGUILAR II (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-06-07No. No. 20-3472

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the sentence and granted counsel permission to withdraw, concluding that the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and committed no clear error of judgment in imposing a within-Guidelines-range sentence.

Gregorio Aguilar II appealed his 24-month prison sentence imposed for violating the terms of his supervised release. He argued that the sentence was substantively unreasonable, and his counsel also requested permission to withdraw from the case. The appellate court found that the sentence fell within the Guidelines range and therefore carried a presumption of reasonableness.

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

Key issues

Substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence
Whether the district court properly applied statutory sentencing factors
Presumptive reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences

Procedural posture

Aguilar appealed a sentence imposed by the district court for violating conditions of supervised release, with counsel seeking permission to withdraw from representation.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Gregorio Aguilar, II, appeals a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 24 months in prison for violating the conditions of supervised release. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, and his attorney seeks permission to withdraw.

We conclude that Aguilars sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court 1

sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.