United States v. Jeffrey Gonzagowski, Jr.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3212

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jeffrey Callen Gonzagowski, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________

Submitted: April 12, 2022 Filed: April 15, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Gonzagowski Jr. received a 360-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). In an Anders brief, Gonzagowski’s counsel suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A supplemental pro se brief raises several other issues.

We conclude that Gonzagowski’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “it is nearly inconceivable that” once a district court has varied downward, it “abuse[s] its discretion in not varying downward [even] further” (quotation marks omitted)). The record establishes that the district court 1 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. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Gonzagowski’s other arguments fare no better. His plea was knowing and voluntary, see Voytik v. United States, 778 F.2d 1306, 1308–09 (8th Cir. 1985); there was a sufficient factual basis for it, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); and the comments the district court made at sentencing did not show bias, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.