United States v. Matthew Dolven

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2021
• Docket: 20-1144
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-1144 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew Eric Dolven

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________

Submitted: November 16, 2020 Filed: February 2, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Dolven received a 360-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to two child-pornography counts. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), (e) (production); 2252(a)(2), (b)(1) (distribution). Although Dolven argues that his sentence is unreasonable, we affirm. The district court1 varied downward after considering multiple mitigating factors. See United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“[The defendant] must show more than the fact that the district court disagreed with his view of what weight ought to be accorded [to] certain sentencing factors.”). “In these circumstances, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward [even] further.” United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009).

Dolven’s other arguments fare no better. Although he complains that the Sentencing Guidelines for child-pornography offenses are “overly punitive,” the district court had no obligation to vary downward on pure “policy grounds,” even if it could have done so. United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2012). Nor has he demonstrated that a 360-month prison sentence creates “unwarranted sentence disparities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); see United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (“[A] sentencing[-]disparity argument requires a showing that the [defendant] and his comparators are similar in conduct and record.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-