United States of America v. James Dean Sterner

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1213
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Dean Sterner
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: August 26, 2024
Filed: August 29, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Sterner appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. His counsel has moved
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, then Chief Judge, now United States
District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
We conclude that the within-Guidelines sentence Sterner received is not
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762
F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a sentence within the Guideline range is
presumed reasonable, and district courts are allowed wide latitude to weigh the
sentencing factors). The record reflects that the district court properly calculated the
Guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no
indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (stating
that an abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider a relevant factor,
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error
of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --