United States v. Jacob Ness ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-1310
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jacob Dylan Ness
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
    ____________
    Submitted: September 19, 2022
    Filed: November 10, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    After Jacob Ness violated the conditions of probation by using methamphetamine,
    the district court1 varied upward and gave him a 27-month prison sentence. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3565
    (a). Although he argues that the sentence is too long, we affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v.
    Michael, 
    12 F.4th 858
    , 860 (8th Cir. 2021) (stating that a within-Guidelines sentence is
    presumed reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently
    considered the statutory sentencing factors, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a), and did not rely on an
    improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Leonard, 
    785 F.3d 303
    , 306–07 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). In its view, Ness presented a “clear
    danger to the community” based on his “outrageous criminal behavior,” even though he
    was “trying to remain sober.” Cf. Michael, 12 F.4th at 860–61 (affirming an upward
    departure based on the district court’s decision “to give greater weight to the risk to the
    public”). Just because Ness believes the court should have weighed these factors
    differently does not mean the court abused its discretion. See United States v.
    Holdsworth, 
    830 F.3d 779
    , 786 (8th Cir. 2016).
    We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1310

Filed Date: 11/10/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/10/2022