United States v. Nicholas Gruner

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 10, 2020
Docket20-1468
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Nicholas Gruner (United States v. Nicholas Gruner) 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. Nicholas Gruner, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-1468 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nicholas John Gruner

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: August 5, 2020 Filed: August 10, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Gruner appeals after he pleaded guilty to a controlled substance offense and the district court1 imposed a sentence at the bottom of the advisory

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. sentencing guideline range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Having carefully reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Munz, 780 F.3d 1199, 1200-01 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________

-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)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Michael Munz
780 F.3d 1199 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Nicholas Gruner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nicholas-gruner-ca8-2020.