Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Alex Trent Vander VEER, also known as Alex Trent Vanderveer Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
In this direct criminal appeal, Alex Vander Veer challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to enticing a minor, pursuant to a written plea agreement. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing the district court erred in applying a Guidelines enhancement for engaging in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct based on hearsay evidence about a pending state sexual abuse charge; and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the enhancement, given the forensic evidence corroborating the hearsay evidence. See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) (stating the district court is permitted to rely on “relevant information for sentencing without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy”); United States v. Sheridan, 859 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2017) (consideration of hearsay evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion where proper objection was made; this court considers such factors as consistency of hearsay testimony, timing and nature of declarant’s statements, witness’s impressions of declarant’s demeanor, and other corroborating evidence). We further conclude the district court’s within-Guidelines’ sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-3368
Decided: September 11, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)