United States v. Jay Dietz

489 F. App'x 996
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 23, 2012
Docket12-2296
StatusUnpublished

This text of 489 F. App'x 996 (United States v. Jay Dietz) 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. Jay Dietz, 489 F. App'x 996 (8th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jay Dietz directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a *997 child-pornography offense. His counsel has moved for permission 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 Mr. Dietz’s 150-month prison term is unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Zauner, 688 F.3d 426, 429-30 (8th Cir.2012) (noting that, when district court varies downward from presumptively reasonable Guidelines sentence, it is nearly inconceivable that court abused its discretion in not varying downward even further); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews sentences under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but in weighing them commits clear error of judgment).

Having independently reviewed the record consistent with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

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. Donna Mary Zauner
688 F.3d 426 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 F. App'x 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jay-dietz-ca8-2012.