Court Opinion

ID: 9864728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:00:35.775864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:22.117192
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 23-1458
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

          Jonathan Francis Speidel

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
      ___________________________

             No. 23-1459
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

          Jonathan Francis Speidel

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                   ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
 for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
               ____________
                           Submitted: September 5, 2023
                            Filed: September 25, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated appeals, Jonathan Speidel appeals the sentence the
district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to sex offenses. His counsel has moved
for leave to 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).

      1
       The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

                                          -2-
      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.
                       ______________________________

                                     -3-