United States v. Jason Eisenach, No. 17-3781 (8th Cir. 2018)Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Below-guidelines sentence was not unreasonable.
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3781 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Jason August Eisenach, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: October 5, 2018 Filed: October 16, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jason Eisenach appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to child-pornography offenses. Eisenach’s counsel moved to withdraw 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The sentence was below the advisory guideline range. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm. ______________________________ -2-