United States v. Brandon Holmes

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-1560 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brandon Scott Holmes

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: February 8, 2024 Filed: February 13, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Holmes received a 295-month prison sentence and an order to pay $60,000 in restitution after he pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). In a pair of Anders briefs, Holmes’s counsel discusses two issues: the lack of statutory authority for the restitution award and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The restitution challenge has been waived, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993), and the sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion). The record establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461–62; see also United States v. Palkowitsch, 36 F.4th 796, 802–03 (8th Cir. 2022).

We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-