United States v. Moses Francisco

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-1530
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Moses Anthon Francisco, also known as Moses Francisco Cruz, also known as Slick
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 20-1531
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Moses Anthon Francisco, also known as Moses Francisco Cruz, also known as
Slick, also known as Moses Anthony Francisco
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 20-1532
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Moses Anthon Francisco
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: November 23, 2020
Filed: December 7, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Moses Francisco appeals the above-Guidelines
sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to immigration and
firearm offenses--instituted by separate indictments--and his supervised release for
a prior offense was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence is unreasonable.
1
The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2-
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines, and did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from
sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion; in determining whether
to depart upward, court should consider nature and extent of criminal history); United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for
substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of
discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight
to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing
appropriate factors; this court must give due deference to district court’s
determination that § 3553(a) factors justify upward variance).
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, and we grant counsel's motions to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-