United States v. Jeffrey Guentert

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2946 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jeffrey Alan Guentert, also known as Jeffrey Allen Guentert Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: June 4, 2026 Filed: June 11, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Guentert appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to receipt of child pornography pursuant to a plea agreement. In his plea agreement, Guentert waived the right to appeal except for, as relevant here, “any The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. sentence imposed by the district court.” His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

This court may consider Guentert’s challenge of his sentence, which falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo). Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant 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) (abuse of discretion review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760–61(8th Cir. 2014) (presuming sentence reasonable if within United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-