Opinion
No. 14-2989
02-09-2015
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Felipe Yanez-Estrada Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo [Unpublished] Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Felipe Yanez-Estrada directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Yanez's sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
After careful review, this court affirms. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (this court reviews sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). Yanez's sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court identified relevant sentencing factors, did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors, and sentenced Yanez at the bottom of his correctly calculated Guidelines range. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (outlining substantive-reasonableness test); United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 869 (8th Cir. 2011) (sentences within Guidelines range are presumed to be substantively reasonable); Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464 (substantive review is narrow and deferential to sentencing court).
An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. This court notes that any claim for a sentence reduction based on Guidelines Amendment 782, see U.S.S.G. Supp. App. C Amend. 782 (Nov. 1, 2014) (reducing base offense level for 10,000-30,000 kilograms of marijuana to 34), should be raised in a sentence-reduction motion filed in the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting sentence reduction based on retroactive Guidelines amendment).
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel's request to withdraw is granted.