United States v. Veronica Pineda De Aquino
142 F.4th 628
8th Cir.2025Background
- Veronica Pineda De Aquino pled guilty to passport fraud after using a false identity (A.E., a real U.S. citizen) to apply for a U.S. passport and commit various related frauds.
- Pineda, a Mexican national, had used the stolen identity for years to obtain an Arkansas driver’s license (seven times), employment, to vote, to secure loans, purchase vehicles, and declare bankruptcy.
- She pled guilty to Count One (passport fraud); the government agreed to dismiss Count Two (identity theft) under a Rule 11(c)(1)(A) plea agreement, contingent on court approval after reviewing a presentence report (PSR).
- The PSR calculated a low Guidelines range (0–6 months), and both sides recommended a non-custodial sentence; the court instead sentenced her to 32 months due to aggravating factors related to extensive fraud.
- On appeal, Pineda argued the district court erred by failing to expressly accept or reject the plea agreement before sentencing, and by imposing a substantively unreasonable, above-Guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Pineda's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to expressly accept or reject plea agreement | The district court committed procedural error by not explicitly accepting/rejecting the plea agreement before sentencing as required by Rule 11; asks for resentencing | The court constructively accepted the plea agreement by its actions and record; no express acceptance required; no prejudice | No plain error; district court constructively accepted agreement under Rule 11; no relief granted |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | District court abused discretion by imposing a 32-month sentence far above Guidelines and not giving adequate weight to mitigating factors | Sentence was warranted due to aggravating circumstances (prolonged, wide-ranging fraud) and harm to victim; all § 3553(a) factors properly weighed | No abuse of discretion; 32-month sentence upheld as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for substantive reasonableness and appellate review of sentencing under abuse-of-discretion)
- United States v. Brown, 571 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court’s constructive acceptance of plea agreement is sufficient under Rule 11)
- United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness review is narrow and deferential)
- United States v. Hubbs, 18 F.4th 570 (8th Cir. 2021) (district court, not government, ultimately determines sentence after § 3553(a) analysis)