UNITED STATES v. JINDRA (2020)

[Unpublished]

Zachariah Jindra appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, and the district court ¹ sentenced him within the advisory sentencing guideline range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence.

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory range. There is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to vary from the advisory range based on the ten-to-one ratio between pure methamphetamine and mixtures containing methamphetamine in the drug conversion tables. The court addressed Jindra’s arguments, considered his submissions, and concluded that a downward variance was not warranted. See United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.