United States v. Bruce Stiles

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Bruce Stiles

417 F. App'x 580

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2011

Docket11-1167

StatusUnpublished

This text of 417 F. App'x 580 (United States v. Bruce Stiles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bruce Stiles, 417 F. App'x 580 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Bruce Stiles pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1), the district court 1 sentenced him within the Guidelines range to 225 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Stiles’s sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Stiles. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews sentencing decision for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence). The court did not commit any procedural error. See id. (describing factors that demonstrate procedural error). As to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we find nothing suggesting that the court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or clearly erred in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness on appeal; describing circumstances in which court abuses its discretion, resulting in substantively unreasonable sentence); cf. United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625, 634-35 (8th Cir.2010) (concluding that within-Guidelines-range sentence was reasonable, notwithstanding testimony of defendant’s expert who believed term of imprisonment was unnecessary), cert. denied, — U.S. *581 -, 131 S.Ct. 2094, 179 L.Ed.2d 896 (2011).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel leave to withdraw subject to her informing Stiles about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After Bruce Stiles pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1), the district court 1 sentenced him within the Guidelines range to 225 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Stiles’s sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Stiles. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews sentencing decision for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence). The court did not commit any procedural error. See id. (describing factors that demonstrate procedural error). As to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we find nothing suggesting that the court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or clearly erred in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness on appeal; describing circumstances in which court abuses its discretion, resulting in substantively unreasonable sentence); cf. United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625, 634-35 (8th Cir.2010) (concluding that within-Guidelines-range sentence was reasonable, notwithstanding testimony of defendant’s expert who believed term of imprisonment was unnecessary), cert. denied, — U.S. *581 -, 131 S.Ct. 2094, 179 L.Ed.2d 896 (2011).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel leave to withdraw subject to her informing Stiles about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F. App'x 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bruce-stiles-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack