USA v. David Jacobs, No. 08-3391 (7th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 11, 2009 Decided February 11, 2009 Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 08 3391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 CR 527 1 DAVID JACOBS, Defendant Appellant. Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge. O R D E R In 2008 David Jacobs pleaded guilty to disposing of hazardous waste without a permit and embezzling funds from an employee benefit plan. See 18 U.S.C. § 664; 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A). The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 46 months imprisonment. Jacobs filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now moves to withdraw on the ground that he cannot find a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jacobs declined our invitation to comment on counsel s motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), and therefore our review is limited to the potential issue raised by counsel in his supporting brief, see United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). No. 08 3391 Page 2 Counsel does not explore whether Jacobs could argue that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. That omission is appropriate, however, given that Jacobs has not indicated that he wishes to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670 71 (7th Cir. 2002). The sole issue that counsel considers is whether Jacobs could challenge the reasonableness of his sentence. But sentences within the correctly calculated guidelines range are presumptively reasonable on appeal. See Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462 65 (2007); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). The only other requirement for a district court looking to impose a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is some meaningful consideration of the sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Laufle, 433 F.3d 981, 987 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, as counsel notes, the district court correctly calculated the guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Jacobs at the middle of the advisory guidelines range of 41 to 51 months. The court noted the seriousness of both of Jacobs s offenses, observing, moreover, that this was not a one time occurrence. The court also emphasized the need to deter corporate officers from misappropriating employee funds. That is explanation enough, and any argument to the contrary would be frivolous. Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
