United States v. Zachary Kruse
This text of United States v. Zachary Kruse (United States v. Zachary Kruse) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 23-3272 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Zachary James Kruse
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________
Submitted: March 4, 2024 Filed: March 7, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________
Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Zachary Kruse appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense. His counsel has requested leave to
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of- discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Zachary Kruse, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-zachary-kruse-ca8-2024.