United States v. Jesus Machaca, No. 15-1187 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Shepherd, Bye, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Challenge to drug quantity and role in the offense enhancements were waived.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1187 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesus Guadalupe Herrera Machaca lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: September 4, 2015 Filed: September 10, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jesus Guadalupe Herrera Machaca appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence that the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a federal drug 1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. conspiracy charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, and also states that appellant wishes to challenge the district court’s Guidelines calculations on drug quantity and role in the offense. Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). As to drug quantity and role in the offense, four days before the sentencing hearing, appellant withdrew his request for an evidentiary hearing on these matters in return for the government’s agreement to a base offense level and role enhancement that defense counsel stipulated--in open court at sentencing--that the government could support with proof. Accordingly, we will not consider any drugquantity or role challenge in this appeal. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and having considered Machaca’s pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
