Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01372/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01372-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Schrock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1372

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Andrew Schrock, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 6, 2010

Filed: August 11, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Andrew Schrock pleaded guilty to making a threat involving fire and

explosives, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e), the district court1

 varied upward from

the recommended Guidelines range and sentenced him to 60 months in prison and 3

years of supervised release. This appeal followed, in which counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm.

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa. 

Appellate Case: 10-1372 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Entry ID: 3692411
We review Schrock’s sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, first

ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then

considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the totality of the

circumstances. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion). Counsel does not appear to

be arguing that there was procedural error, and in any event, we find none. We also

conclude the sentence was not substantively unreasonable given the district court’s

careful and proper consideration of multiple 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors

that the court believed warranted a variance in this case, including Schrock’s history

and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of his offense, and his danger to the

community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(D) (sentencing factors include need

to reflect seriousness of offense and protect public from further crimes by defendant,

nature and circumstances of offense, history and characteristics of defendant,

affording adequate deterrence, and need to provide defendant with treatment); Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (reviewing court must give due deference to

sentencing court’s decision that § 3553(a) factors justify variance); cf. United States

v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808, 812-13 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming variance from Guidelines

range of 15-21 months to 48 months in prison where court properly considered

§ 3553(a) factors, particularly need to promote respect for law, provide just

punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect public). 

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 10-1372 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Entry ID: 3692411