United States v. Jedediah Stout, No. 16-4139 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4139 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jedediah Stout lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: October 26, 2017 Filed: October 31, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jedediah Stout directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to arson and other offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the substantive reasonableness of Stout’s prison term and the propriety of a restitution order. Upon careful review,2 we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness), and that the court did not err in ordering restitution, see 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c) (authorizing restitution). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 2 We decline to enforce an appeal waiver in Stout’s plea agreement. See United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 515-16 (8th Cir. 2011). -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.
