United States v. Christopher Kern, No. 10-1982 (8th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1982 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Christopher Mark Kern, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: November 3, 2010 Filed: November 5, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Mark Kern appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1), and a forfeiture count. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. 1 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 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.