United States v. Jack Kloster

387 F. App'x 645
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 2, 2010
Docket10-1632
StatusUnpublished

This text of 387 F. App'x 645 (United States v. Jack Kloster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jack Kloster, 387 F. App'x 645 (8th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jack Kloster pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, and the district court 1 sentenced him to 151 months in prison and supervised release for life. 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 that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court disproportionately weighed a victim statement that was read into the record at the sentencing hearing. We reject this argument, affirm Kloster’s sentence, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

To begin, we note that the sentence was imposed at the bottom of the uncontested Guidelines range, and therefore on appeal, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir.2009). And having carefully reviewed the record, including the court’s remarks during the sentencing hearing, we conclude that Kloster has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness, based on the court’s consideration of the victim statement or any other reason. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 *646 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion).

We also have reviewed the record, as required by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), to determine whether there are any nonfrivo-lous issues for appeal, and we have found none. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw conditioned on counsel informing Kloster about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and filing a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

1

. The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HEN-DREN, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Sicaros-Quintero
557 F.3d 579 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 F. App'x 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jack-kloster-ca8-2010.