United States of America v. Jade Daniel Joseph Monahan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3611
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jade Daniel Joseph Monahan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: March 30, 2022
Filed: April 4, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jade Monahan appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he was
found guilty by a jury of committing a child pornography offense. He argues that the
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence after giving insufficient weight
to mitigating factors such as his addictions to alcohol and Adderall, his offense
conduct being limited to receipt, and his relatively minor criminal history.
Upon careful review, we conclude that Monahan’s sentence was not
substantively unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked
a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United
States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (court of appeals reviews
reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d
1167, 1169 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court abuses its discretion when it fails to
consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant
weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but
commits clear error of judgment in weighing those factors); see also United States v.
Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (sentence that falls within Guidelines
range is presumed to be reasonable). The court made an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court
makes individualized assessment of § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented,
sentence is not unreasonable).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --