United States v. Jennifer Furlong, No. 10-1945 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error and the sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1945 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jennifer Lynnette Furlong, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 1, 2010 Filed: September 3, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jennifer Furlong challenges the 39-month sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to three counts of access-device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), and three counts of identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
