United States v. Jason Eisenach

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 16, 2018
Docket17-3781
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Jason Eisenach (United States v. Jason Eisenach) 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. Jason Eisenach, (8th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 17-3781 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Jason August Eisenach,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________

Submitted: October 5, 2018 Filed: October 16, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Jason Eisenach appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to child-pornography offenses. Eisenach’s counsel moved to withdraw

1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The sentence was below the advisory guideline range. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016).

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’s motion and affirm. ______________________________

-2-

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. Ramiro Salazar-Aleman
741 F.3d 878 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Alejandro Manuel Torres-Ojeda
829 F.3d 1027 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Jason Eisenach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jason-eisenach-ca8-2018.