United States v. Zachariah Jindra, No. 19-2195 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Within-guidelines sentence was not an abuse of the district court's discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2195 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Zachariah Adam Jindra, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant, ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: April 23, 2020 Filed: April 28, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Zachariah Jindra appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, and the district court1 sentenced him within the advisory 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. sentencing guideline range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory range. There is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to vary from the advisory range based on the ten-to-one ratio between pure methamphetamine and mixtures containing methamphetamine in the drug conversion tables. The court addressed Jindra’s arguments, considered his submissions, and concluded that a downward variance was not warranted. See United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
