United States v. John Davison

Eighth Circuit

United States v. John Davison

470 F. App'x 537

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2012

Docket11-3873

StatusUnpublished

This text of 470 F. App'x 537 (United States v. John Davison) 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. John Davison, 470 F. App'x 537 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Davison appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A)(B), (b)(1). 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), suggesting that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court — at the bottom of the properly calculated Guidelines range — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness, but presumption may be rebutted by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; defendant must show that district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but nevertheless committed clear error of judgment).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

John Davison appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A)(B), (b)(1). 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), suggesting that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court — at the bottom of the properly calculated Guidelines range — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness, but presumption may be rebutted by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; defendant must show that district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but nevertheless committed clear error of judgment).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F. App'x 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-davison-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack