United States v. Jeffrey Rand

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jeffrey Rand

504 F. App'x 541

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 2013

Docket12-3151

StatusUnpublished

This text of 504 F. App'x 541 (United States v. Jeffrey Rand) 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. Jeffrey Rand, 504 F. App'x 541 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Jeffrey Rand pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the district court 1 imposed a sentence of 57 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and $7,921,435.86 in restitution. On appeal, Rand’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); the *542 brief addresses the reasonableness of Rand’s sentence.

We conclude that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors, and that the 57-month prison term — which was the top of the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1178 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review); see also United States v. Mabery, 686 F.3d 591, 599 (8th Cir.2012) (court of appeals may presume sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable); United States v. Wood, 587 F.3d 882, 884 (8th Cir.2009) (court adequately addresses 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if it references at least some of them). We also conclude that Rand cannot challenge the restitution portion of his sentence, having withdrawn his related objection at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Watson-El, 174 Fed.Appx. 356, 356 (8th Cir.2006) (unpublished per curiam) (defendant waived appeal challenge to restitution amount by withdrawing objection to it in district court).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

After Jeffrey Rand pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the district court 1 imposed a sentence of 57 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and $7,921,435.86 in restitution. On appeal, Rand’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); the *542 brief addresses the reasonableness of Rand’s sentence.

We conclude that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors, and that the 57-month prison term — which was the top of the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1178 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review); see also United States v. Mabery, 686 F.3d 591, 599 (8th Cir.2012) (court of appeals may presume sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable); United States v. Wood, 587 F.3d 882, 884 (8th Cir.2009) (court adequately addresses 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if it references at least some of them). We also conclude that Rand cannot challenge the restitution portion of his sentence, having withdrawn his related objection at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Watson-El, 174 Fed.Appx. 356, 356 (8th Cir.2006) (unpublished per curiam) (defendant waived appeal challenge to restitution amount by withdrawing objection to it in district court).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 F. App'x 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jeffrey-rand-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack