United States v. Bjorn Luster

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1275
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Bjorn Christian Luster
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
____________
Submitted: September 12, 2014
Filed: September 17, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Bjorn Luster directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district
1
court imposed after he pled guilty to possessing a destructive device. His counsel
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), arguing that the district court procedurally erred by basing its selection
of Luster’s sentence on an unproven fact, and that the court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did
not procedurally err or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (setting forth
standards for reviewing sentencing decisions; where sentence falls within Guidelines
range, appeals court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of
reasonableness); see also United States v. Bolanos, 409 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir.
2005) (where there are two permissible views of evidence, factfinder’s choice
between them cannot be clearly erroneous).
Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, counsel’s motion
to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-