United States v. Brian Christensen

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1439

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brian Allen Christensen

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

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

____________

Submitted: September 6, 2022 Filed: September 9, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Brian Christensen appeals his conviction and the sentence the district court1 imposed after a jury found him guilty of receiving child pornography. His counsel

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired.

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful de novo review, see United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency of evidence to support conviction is reviewed de novo, viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury verdict, and giving verdict benefit of all reasonable inferences), we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict Christensen of knowingly receiving child pornography, see United States v. Kelley, 861 F.3d 790, 797 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Hill, 750 F.3d 982, 988-89 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Schwarte, 645 F.3d 1022, 1032 (8th Cir. 2011).

We also conclude that Christensen’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); and the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range, see United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________