United States of America v. Jonathan Francis Speidel

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1458
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jonathan Francis Speidel
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 23-1459
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jonathan Francis Speidel
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: September 5, 2023
Filed: September 25, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Jonathan Speidel appeals the sentence the
district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to sex offenses. 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.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences
are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment
in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the
Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir.
2013).
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --