United States v. Mackenzie Servantez, No. 15-2602 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bye and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 07, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2602 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mackenzie Everett Servantez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: December 3, 2015 Filed: December 8, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mackenzie Servantez directly appeals after he pled guilty to a federal drug charge, and the district court1 sentenced him at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he challenges the substantive reasonableness of Servantez’s sentence. Servantez had filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating counsel’s argument. Upon careful review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vary below the Guidelines range, and that the resulting sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Jordan, 573 F.3d 586, 590 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
