United States of America v. Anthony Dean Essing

25-1338Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit29 mai 2026

Texte intégral

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3193
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Anthony Dean Essing
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: May 19, 2026
Filed: May 29, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Essing appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a written plea agreement. His counsel
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is a
sovereign citizen and that the indictment was unconstitutional.
After careful review, we conclude the district court had jurisdiction to sentence
Essing, see 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (district courts have original jurisdiction of all offenses
against the laws of the United States); United States v. Hardin, 489 Fed. Appx. 984,
986 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting sovereign citizen-style challenges to jurisdiction as
meritless); United States v. Simonson, 563 Fed. Appx. 514 (8th Cir. 2014)
(unpublished per curiam) (argument that defendants were sovereign citizens to whom
court’s jurisdiction and federal criminal statutes did not apply was frivolous), and that
the indictment was constitutional, see United States v. Hayes, 574 F.3d 460, 471-72
(8th Cir. 2009) (because indictment sufficiently alleged violation of the laws of the
United States, district court had jurisdiction).
Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.