Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04073/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04073-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kendall William Jacobs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4073

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * Northern District of Iowa 

*

Kendall William Jacobs, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 19, 2004

Filed: May 21, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kendall W. Jacobs pleaded guilty to willfully failing to pay child support, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). The district court1

 declined to impose a split

sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(d)(2), sentenced Jacobs to 11 months imprisonment

and 1 year supervised release, and ordered restitution of $67,979.39. On appeal,

Jacobs’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

Appellate Case: 03-4073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2004 Entry ID: 1769652 
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court abused its

discretion in not granting Jacobs a split sentence.

We find that the district court understood its authority to impose a split

sentence, and thus its discretionary decision not to do so is unreviewable. See 18

U.S.C. § 3742(a); United States v. Smotherman, 326 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.) (per

curiam) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review district court’s exercise of

discretion in setting sentence within properly determined Guidelines range), cert.

denied, 124 S. Ct. 293 (2003); United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 310 F.3d 792, 793-94

(5th Cir. 2002) (district court’s discretionary refusal to impose split sentence under

§ 5C1.1(d) does not fall within criteria listed in § 3742(a)). We also have carefully

reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have

found no nonfrivolous issues. 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2004 Entry ID: 1769652