United States v. Brian Swartz, No. 16-4525 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a mitigating-role reduction or a further downward departure or variance. [ July 19, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4525 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Brian Swartz lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: July 18, 2017 Filed: July 20, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Brian Swartz pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court1 determined that his advisory guidelines range 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. was 188 to 235 months in prison, granted the government’s motion for a substantial assistance reduction, and sentenced Swartz to 144 months. He appeals the sentence, and his counsel has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a mitigating-role reduction, and abused its discretion in denying a downward variance. After careful review of the record, including Swartz’s admissions of substantial involvement in the conspiracy in the plea agreement, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying a mitigating-role reduction, and did not abuse its discretion in declining a further downward departure or variance. We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, 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.
