United States v. Jack Kloster , 387 F. App'x 645 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-1632
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                 * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                             * Western District of Arkansas.
    *
    Jack Kloster,                           *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 14, 2010
    Filed: August 2, 2010
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jack Kloster pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, and the district
    1
    court sentenced him to 151 months in prison and supervised release for life. Counsel
    has moved 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 disproportionately weighed a victim statement that was read into the record at
    the sentencing hearing. We reject this argument, affirm Kloster’s sentence, and grant
    counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    1
    The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, Chief Judge, United States
    District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
    To begin, we note that the sentence was imposed at the bottom of the
    uncontested Guidelines range, and therefore on appeal, the sentence is entitled to a
    presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 
    557 F.3d 579
    ,
    583 (8th Cir. 2009). And having carefully reviewed the record, including the court’s
    remarks during the sentencing hearing, we conclude that Kloster has not rebutted the
    presumption of reasonableness, based on the court’s consideration of the victim
    statement or any other reason. See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th
    Cir. 2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion).
    We also have reviewed the record, as required by Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues for appeal, and we
    have found none. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
    conditioned on counsel informing Kloster about the procedures for seeking rehearing
    from this court and filing a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of
    the United States.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1632

Citation Numbers: 387 F. App'x 645

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Benton

Filed Date: 8/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024