United States v. Timothy Kluck, No. 19-3045 (8th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3045 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Timothy Andrew Kluck lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: May 7, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Andrew Kluck appeals after he pled guilty to two counts of possessing an unregistered firearm, and the district court1 sentenced him to a within-Guidelines 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. prison term. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291, this court affirms. After carefully reviewing the record, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory range, as 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. Munz, 780 F.3d 1199, 1200-01 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). This court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment 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.