United States v. Thomas Jager, No. 14-3381 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant cannot challenge the Guidelines calculations where he stipulated to the sentencing range and his attorney stated at sentencing that defendant had no objections and withdrew any previous objections; sentence was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3381 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Thomas Richard Jager lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: June 5, 2015 Filed: June 19, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Jager directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed upon his guilty plea to fraud offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues the sentence is unreasonable. In a supplemental brief, Jager also argues that the sentence is unreasonable, and challenges various Guidelines calculations. We decline to review Jager’s challenges to the Guidelines calculations, because his pre-sentencing stipulation to the Guidelines range, coupled with defense counsel’s statement at sentencing that Jager had no objections to the presentence report’s facts and Guidelines calculations, constituted withdrawal of his previous objections. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (waiver is intentional abandonment of known right and results in issue being unreviewable on appeal). We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentence). Finally, upon 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.
