United States v. Jason Gordon, No. 10-2324 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2324 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jason Dale Gordon, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: November 30, 2010 Filed: December 9, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James Dale Gordon appeals the substantially below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to one count of knowingly distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues only that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors in declining to grant a larger downward variance. Having carefully reviewed the sentencing record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding below-Guidelines-range sentence), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1309 (2010). We have also reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We grant defense counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Gordon about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and for petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
