Filed: Jul. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-3400 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Nathan John Wagner, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport _ Submitted: July 25, 2018 Filed: July 30, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Nathan Wagner appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-3400 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Nathan John Wagner, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport _ Submitted: July 25, 2018 Filed: July 30, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Nathan Wagner appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he p..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3400
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Nathan John Wagner,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: July 25, 2018
Filed: July 30, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Nathan Wagner appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Wagner’s counsel has
1
The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence. The sentence was below the advisory guideline range. The
court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no
indication that the court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant
factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman,
741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013)
(standard of review); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda,
829 F.3d 1027, 1030
(8th Cir. 2016).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-