UNITED STATES v. CERVANTES MENDOZA (2019)

[Unpublished]

Eduwijes Cervantes-Mendoza appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, and the district court ¹ sentenced him below the calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved 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 the district court erred by holding Cervantes-Mendoza accountable for methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator’s vehicle, and the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

First, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in holding Cervantes-Mendoza accountable for methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator’s vehicle. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (noting in cases of jointly undertaken criminal activity in concert with others, a defendant is responsible for conduct (1) within scope of the activity, (2) in furtherance of the activity, and (3) reasonably foreseeable); see also United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513, 533 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing for clear error district court’s findings as to the scope, furtherance, and foreseeability). Second, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.