United States v. Jacob Ness

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 10, 2022
Docket22-1310
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Jacob Ness (United States v. Jacob Ness) 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. Jacob Ness, (8th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-1310 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jacob Dylan Ness

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: September 19, 2022 Filed: November 10, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

After Jacob Ness violated the conditions of probation by using methamphetamine, the district court1 varied upward and gave him a 27-month prison sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a). Although he argues that the sentence is too long, we affirm.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Michael, 12 F.4th 858, 860 (8th Cir. 2021) (stating that a within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Leonard, 785 F.3d 303, 306–07 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). In its view, Ness presented a “clear danger to the community” based on his “outrageous criminal behavior,” even though he was “trying to remain sober.” Cf. Michael, 12 F.4th at 860–61 (affirming an upward departure based on the district court’s decision “to give greater weight to the risk to the public”). Just because Ness believes the court should have weighed these factors differently does not mean the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Holdsworth, 830 F.3d 779, 786 (8th Cir. 2016).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Michael Leonard
785 F.3d 303 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Christopher Holdsworth
830 F.3d 779 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Colin Michael
12 F.4th 858 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Jacob Ness, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jacob-ness-ca8-2022.