United States v. Dennis Jenne, No. 20-1302 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The within-Guidelines sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1302 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dennis Jenne Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: October 15, 2020 Filed: October 23, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dennis L. Jenne appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court 1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court considered unproven allegations relating to an ongoing investigation. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); cf. United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). The record reflects that the court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and did not give significant weight to an improper factor. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 917 (district court abuses its discretion in imposing revocation sentence if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment). The revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony), (h) (length of new supervisedrelease term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms), (k) (for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250, maximum term of supervised release is life). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
