USA v. Bjorn Luster, No. 14-1275 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not commit any procedural error and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ September 16, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1275 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Bjorn Christian Luster lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: September 12, 2014 Filed: September 17, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Bjorn Luster directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to possessing a destructive device. His counsel 1 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), arguing that the district court procedurally erred by basing its selection of Luster s sentence on an unproven fact, and that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not procedurally err or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (setting forth standards for reviewing sentencing decisions; where sentence falls within Guidelines range, appeals court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Bolanos, 409 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2005) (where there are two permissible views of evidence, factfinder s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous). Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, 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.
