United States v. Jay Dietz, No. 12-2296 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 22, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2296 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee v. Jay Eugene Dietz lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: October 16, 2012 Filed: October 23, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jay Dietz directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a child-pornography offense. His counsel has 1 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. moved for permission to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Mr. Dietz s 150-month prison term is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Zauner, 688 F.3d 426, 429-30 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that, when district court varies downward from presumptively reasonable Guidelines sentence, it is nearly inconceivable that court abused its discretion in not varying downward even further); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews sentences under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but in weighing them commits clear error of judgment). Having independently reviewed the record consistent with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.
