United States v. Dennis Jenne

<p>United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1302 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dennis Jenne Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: October 15, 2020 Filed: October 23, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dennis L. Jenne appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court 1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court considered unproven allegations relating to an ongoing investigation. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); cf. United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). The record reflects that the court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and did not give significant weight to an improper factor. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 917 (district court abuses its discretion in imposing revocation sentence if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment). The revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony), (h) (length of new supervised- release term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms), (k) (for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250, maximum term of supervised release is life). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- 20-1302 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ca8 8th Cir. United States v. Dennis Jenne 23 October 2020 Unpublished ae69b573e9f7c522ae2c3bcccf007f69a179d216</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799763/united-states-v-dennis-jenne/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on NO-SCAM.com, it is strongly advised to avoid United States v. Dennis Jenne in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from United States v. Dennis Jenne. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike No-Scam.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
United States v. Dennis Jenne is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above review and comments against United States v. Dennis Jenne were submitted by NO-SCAM.com user(s) and have been published as-is. NO-SCAM.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews or complaints and NO-SCAM.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on United States v. Dennis Jenne at any cost whatsoever.
>