United States v. Jesse Akers, No. 13-1078 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No error in taking and accepting defendant's guilty plea; sentence imposed was substantively reasonable; court was authorized to run the sentences in the two counts at issue partially consecutively to achieve the total punishment the court determined was appropriate; court was authorized to make defendant's federal sentence consecutive to his undischarged state sentence. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1078 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesse Raymond Akers lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: August 28, 2013 Filed: September 3, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jesse Raymond Akers directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 upon his guilty plea to firearm offenses. His counsel 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court committed reversible error during the guilty-plea or sentencing proceedings. After a careful review of the record, this court finds no grounds for reversal in connection with the taking and acceptance of Akers s guilty plea, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (procedures and criteria for accepting guilty plea), or the imposition of his sentence, which this court finds is reasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of federal criminal sentence for significant procedural error and substantive reasonableness, and noting court s discretion to apply appellate presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines range). The district court was authorized to run the sentences for the two counts at issue partially consecutively to achieve the total punishment that the district court determined was appropriate, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d), and the court was authorized to impose the sentence consecutively to Akers s undischarged state sentence, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). In determining the sentence, the district court recognized, discussed, and applied relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) and finds no nonfrivolous issues. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
