United States v. Kasey Konzem, No. 20-1725 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in declining to apply a mitigating role reduction; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary and there was an adequate factual basis for the plea; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered on direct appeal. [ October 07, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1725 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kasey Charles Konzem lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: October 5, 2020 Filed: October 8, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kasey Konzem appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s1 denial of a mitigating-role reduction and the substantive reasonableness of Konzem’s sentence. Konzem has filed a motion to proceed pro se in this court and has submitted a pro se brief challenging the voluntariness of his plea and the factual basis for his plea. He also asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in declining to apply a mitigating-role reduction. See United States v. Hunt, 840 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Konzem, as the record indicates that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that under a substantive-reasonableness review, the district court abuses its discretion if it “fails to consider a relevant factor,” “gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,” or “commits a clear error of judgment” in weighing the factors). As to Konzem’s pro se arguments, we conclude that his statements at the plea hearing establish that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he defendant’s representations during the plea-taking carry a strong presumption of verity.”); see also United States v. Cheney, 571 F.3d 764, 769 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that the record must contain sufficient evidence at the time of the plea upon which the court may reasonably determine that the defendant likely committed the offense). We defer any ineffective-assistance claims for collateral proceedings. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny the motion to proceed pro se as moot, and affirm. ______________________________ -3-
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.
