United States v. Jarrod Kent

                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit

                                No. 19-3616

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee


                                 Jarrod Terrell Kent

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

                            Submitted: October 9, 2020
                             Filed: October 15, 2020

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.


      Jarrod Kent appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the district
court imposed a sentence consistent with his binding Federal Rule of Criminal

      The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. His
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable.

      Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 

627 F.3d 702

, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed
de novo); United States v. Andis, 

333 F.3d 886

, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

488 U.S. 75

(1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid United States v. Jarrod Kent in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from United States v. Jarrod Kent. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
United States v. Jarrod Kent 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.