Filed: Oct. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-1898 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesse Luuloa Pier lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 2, 2014 Filed: October 7, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jesse Pier directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 14-1898 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesse Luuloa Pier lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 2, 2014 Filed: October 7, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jesse Pier directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the d..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1898
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jesse Luuloa Pier
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: October 2, 2014
Filed: October 7, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jesse Pier directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district
1
court imposed after he pled guilty to unlawful transportation of a minor for sexual
1
The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.
purposes. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that Pier’s sentence is excessive. In addition, counsel has moved for
leave to withdraw.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions; where sentence
falls within Guidelines range, appeals court may, but is not required to, apply
presumption of reasonableness). Further, 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-