Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Charles GARREANS Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-4124
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2017
    Filed: June 20, 2017
    Richard E. Rothrock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Council Bluffs, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael Charles Garreans, Pro Se
    Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM,

Michael Charles Garreans directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Garreans’s 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 the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

Counsel’s argument fails. Upon review of the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the district court’s carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court varied downward from Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that it abused its discretion in not varying downward further still).

Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the amended judgment incorrectly cites “18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B)” (prohibiting sale of, or possession with intent to sell, child pornography) as the offense of conviction, and thus we modify the judgment to substitute “18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)” for “18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B).” See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify any judgment brought before it for review).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment, as modified. 
      
      . The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.