Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03381/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Richard Jager
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3381

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Thomas Richard Jager

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: June 5, 2015

Filed: June 19, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Jager directly appeals the sentence that the district court imposed

1

upon his guilty plea to fraud offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-3381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2015 Entry ID: 4286933 
brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues the sentence

is unreasonable. In a supplemental brief, Jager also argues that the sentence is

unreasonable, and challenges various Guidelines calculations.

We decline to reviewJager’s challenges to the Guidelines calculations, because

his pre-sentencing stipulation to theGuidelines range, coupled with defense counsel’s

statement at sentencing that Jager had no objections to the presentence report’s facts

and Guidelines calculations, constituted withdrawal of his previous objections. See

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (waiver isintentional abandonment

of known right and results in issue being unreviewable on appeal). We conclude that

the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461

(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentence). Finally, upon

independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988),

we find no nonfrivolous issues.

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

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3381 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2015 Entry ID: 4286933