United States v. Aaron Olson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Aaron Olson

Opinion

                 United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 24-1466
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                   Aaron Olson

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: July 23, 2024
                               Filed: July 26, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      When Aaron Olson pleaded guilty to child-pornography charges, see 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), he expressly waived his right to receive a sentence
reduction. See id. § 3582(c)(2). Several years later, the district court1 raised the

      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
issue on its own and denied relief. His counsel, who seeks to withdraw, suggests
that Olson was eligible for one.

       We conclude that the plea agreement forecloses the argument. See United
States v. Scott, 
627 F.3d 702, 704
 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of a waiver
de novo); United States v. Andis, 
333 F.3d 886
, 889–90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(explaining that defendants can waive additional statutory rights when they plead
guilty if “each term of [the] agreement” is “entered into knowingly and voluntarily”).
The district court could not have erred by denying a right that Olson had already
“intentional[ly] relinquish[ed].” United States v. Olano, 
507 U.S. 725, 733
 (1993)
(citation omitted). We accordingly dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission
to withdraw.
                         ______________________________




                                         -2-


Reference

Status
Unpublished