United States v. Christopher Goerdt

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 1, 2022
• Docket: 21-1984
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1984 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Christopher Michael Goerdt

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: February 14, 2022 Filed: March 1, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Goerdt appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to bank fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and misapplication by

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, then District Judge, now Chief Judge, United States District Court the Southern District of Iowa. a bank officer. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging several findings underlying the district court’s United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) calculations.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing Goerdt. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating Guidelines range); see also United States v. Jenkins-Watts, 574 F.3d 950, 960–61 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing appellate review of loss determinations). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-