Court Opinion

ID: 9916750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 17:00:44.602739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:57.468391
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2864
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

              Jess Tyler Johnson, also known as Jess Tylor Johnson

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: January 5, 2024
                             Filed: January 10, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jess Johnson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

      1
       The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
sentence. Johnson has filed a pro se brief restating counsel’s arguments.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court correctly determined
that Johnson was a career offender and correctly calculated his Guidelines range. See
United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (construction and
application of Guidelines are reviewed de novo). We also conclude that the court did
not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it 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)
(reviewing sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider
relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the 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) (noting that when the district court
has varied below the Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court
abused its discretion in not varying further).

       We further conclude that Johnson failed to show the district court judge was
unprepared or biased. See United States v. Waters, 799 F.3d 964, 975 (8th Cir. 2015)
(this court presumes district court adequately considered written and oral arguments
presented by defendant); United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530, 536-37 (8th Cir. 2010)
(judge is presumed impartial, and party seeking disqualification bears substantial
burden of proving otherwise). We decline to address in this direct appeal Johnson’s
claim that counsel was ineffective. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746,
749 (8th Cir. 2002) (generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct
appeal).

                                          -2-
      We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgement, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                      -3-