United States of America v. Jeffrey Alan Guentert, also known as Jeffrey Allen Guentert

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2946
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Alan Guentert, also known as Jeffrey Allen Guentert
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: June 4, 2026
Filed: June 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Guentert appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pled guilty to receipt of child pornography pursuant to a plea agreement. In his plea
agreement, Guentert waived the right to appeal except for, as relevant here, “any
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
sentence imposed by the district court.” His counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
This court may consider Guentert’s challenge of his sentence, which falls
outside the scope of the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement. See United
States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal
waiver de novo). Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court
did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court properly
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that it
overlooked a relevant factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); see also United States v. Callaway,
762 F.3d 754, 760–61(8th Cir. 2014) (presuming sentence reasonable if within
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope
of the appeal waiver.
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --