United States v. Timothy Kemner

431 F. App'x 517
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 3, 2011
Docket11-1376
StatusUnpublished

This text of 431 F. App'x 517 (United States v. Timothy Kemner) 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. Timothy Kemner, 431 F. App'x 517 (8th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Kemner appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). 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), challenging Kemner’s sentence. We conclude, upon careful review, that the district court properly sentenced Kemner and imposed a reasonable sentence. 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); United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court applies presumption of reasonableness to sentence that reflects proper application of Guidelines, but presumption may be rebutted by reference to factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); defendant must show that district court failed to consider relevant factor, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but nevertheless committed clear error of judgment).

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

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, 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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Peck
496 F.3d 885 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
431 F. App'x 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-timothy-kemner-ca8-2011.