United States v. Edward Jones, No. 14-2087 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant requested variance below the advisory Guidelines range.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2087 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Edward Jones lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: November 19, 2014 Filed: November 24, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Edward Jones directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief filed 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the court abused its discretion in declining to vary below the advisory Guidelines range. After careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant the requested variance, see United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 608 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of motion for downward variance where court considered sentencing factors and properly explained rationale). We also conclude that the within-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively reasonable. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of substantive reasonableness). Finally, after independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. 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.
