United States v. Nicholas Gruner, No. 20-1468 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's bottom-of-the-advisory-range sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ August 07, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1468 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Nicholas John Gruner lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: August 5, 2020 Filed: August 10, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Nicholas Gruner appeals after he pleaded guilty to a controlled substance offense and the district court1 imposed a sentence at the bottom of the advisory 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. sentencing guideline range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Having carefully reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Munz, 780 F.3d 1199, 1200-01 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
