United States v. Jason Konvalinka, No. 19-1710 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable. [ July 25, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1710 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jason Lee Konvalinka lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: July 19, 2019 Filed: July 26, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jason Lee Konvalinka directly appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Counsel seeks 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. permission to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Konvalinka. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The record reflects that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006); and the sentence is within the Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and 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.
