United States v. Alvan Allen

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-3022

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alvan Allen

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: March 25, 2025 Filed: March 28, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Alvan Allen appeals the judgment entered by the district court1 after a bench trial where he was found guilty of a child pornography offense. His counsel has

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s denial of Allen’s motion to suppress.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Allen’s motion to suppress, as the search warrant was based on probable cause, and it was not overbroad or lacking in particularity. See United States v. Holly, 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review); United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Summage, 481 F.3d 1075, 1078-80 (8th Cir. 2007). In any event, nothing in the record indicated the officers did not execute the warrant in good faith. See United States v. Ortiz-Cervantes, 868 F.3d 695, 702 (8th Cir. 2017). Additionally, the district court did not err in admitting statements Allen made in his interviews with police, as his first interview was not custodial, and the police conduct preceding both interviews was valid. See United States v. Martinez, 462 F.3d 903, 908-09 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Smith, 715 F.3d 1110, 1118 n.5 (8th Cir. 2013).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________