Court Opinion

ID: 9948519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 16:01:40.31173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:37.274356
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3272
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Zachary James Kruse

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: March 4, 2024
                               Filed: March 7, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Zachary Kruse appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense. His counsel has requested leave to

      1
      The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.
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).

      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.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-