United States v. Jack Kloster, No. 10-1632 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1632 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jack Kloster, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: July 14, 2010 Filed: August 2, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jack Kloster pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, and the district court sentenced him to 151 months in prison and supervised release for life. Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court disproportionately weighed a victim statement that was read into the record at the sentencing hearing. We reject this argument, affirm Kloster s sentence, and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. 1 1 The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. To begin, we note that the sentence was imposed at the bottom of the uncontested Guidelines range, and therefore on appeal, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009). And having carefully reviewed the record, including the court s remarks during the sentencing hearing, we conclude that Kloster has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness, based on the court s consideration of the victim statement or any other reason. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion). We also have reviewed the record, as required by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues for appeal, and we have found none. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw conditioned on counsel informing Kloster about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and filing a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. ______________________________ -2-
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.
