United States v. Juan Garcia-Maldonado

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3070 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Juan Garcia-Maldonado

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: December 30, 2021 Filed: January 13, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Garcia-Maldonado appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,

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

and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the drug quantity attributed to him, and arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that Garcia-Maldonado waived any challenges to drug quantity attributed to him when he withdrew his objections to the presentence report (PSR) at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2016) (concluding that defendant waived his challenge to the application of a sentencing enhancement when he withdrew his objection to the enhancement in the district court); United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (declining to review findings related to a sentencing enhancement, drug quantity, and criminal history, even for plain error, where defendant withdrew his objections to the PSR).

We also conclude that Garcia-Maldonado’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that this court reviews the imposition of sentences for abuse of discretion; a district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-