United States v. Jacob Montgomery, No. 15-1024 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No error in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction based on defendant's post-plea conduct. [ June 01, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1024 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jacob Lloyd Montgomery lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs ____________ Submitted: May 21, 2015 Filed: June 2, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jacob Montgomery directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed upon his guilty plea to an escape charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court abused its discretion at sentencing in denying Montgomery a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and imposing an unreasonable sentence. Upon careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Montgomery. Specifically, we find that the court did not clearly err in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction based on the sentencing testimony presented regarding Montgomery’s post-plea conduct, see United States v. William, 681 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Arellano, 291 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2002) (defendant’s postplea behavior is relevant consideration for determining acceptance of responsibility), and the sentence is not unreasonable, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Further, upon independently reviewing the record in accordance with 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 the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
