United States v. Jeremy Strom, No. 18-3473 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender based on his conviction for Iowa assault in violation of Iowa Code Ann. Sections 708.1 and 708.2(3); sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ August 05, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3473 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jeremy Strom lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs ____________ Submitted: August 1, 2019 Filed: August 6, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jeremy Strom directly appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense and witness tampering. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Strom was erroneously classified as a career offender based in part on his prior conviction for Iowa assault with a dangerous weapon. Counsel also suggests that Strom’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. First, we conclude that Strom was not erroneously classified as a career offender, in light of United States v. McGee, 890 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2018) (Iowa assault while displaying dangerous weapon under Iowa Code Ann. §§ 708.1 and 708.2(3) is crime of violence). Next, we conclude that Strom’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as it was below the calculated Guidelines range, and there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for this panel’s consideration. We therefore affirm, and counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
