UNITED STATES v. ACOSTA RUIZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-03-08No. No. 20-2973

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the within-Guidelines sentence, concluding that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence because it properly considered the relevant statutory factors in its individualized assessment.

Omar Acosta-Ruiz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and received a sentence within the federal guidelines. He appealed, challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. The appellate court examined whether the district court properly considered the statutory factors required by law when imposing the sentence and found no procedural errors or unreasonable judgment in the sentencing determination.

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

Key issues

Whether a within-Guidelines sentence for illegal reentry was substantively unreasonable
Whether the district court properly considered statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
Standard of review for appellate sentencing challenges

Procedural posture

Acosta-Ruiz appealed his within-Guidelines sentence following a guilty plea to illegal reentry, with appointed counsel filing an Anders brief arguing substantive unreasonableness.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Omar Acosta-Ruiz appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court

imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence because the record reflects that it properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; 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 factor); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendants proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsels motion to withdraw is granted.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.