Case ID: f-appx_252/html/0120-01.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, Appellee, v. Donald L. SNYDER, Appellant.
    No. 06-3484.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 23, 2007.
    Filed: Oct. 26, 2007.
    
      Jana K. Harris, Todd Lister Newton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Myesha K. Braden, U.S. Department of Justice, Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
    Richard Lane Hughes, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.
    Donald L. Snyder, Mason, TN, pro se.
    Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Donald Snyder appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). At sentencing, the court discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly emphasizing the need for general deterrence, and sentenced Snyder to 78 months in prison (the bottom of the applicable advisory Guidelines range), followed by 3 years of supervised release. Snyder’s counsel has moved to withdraw and, in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questions the reasonableness of Snyder’s sentence.

We view a sentence within the correctly calculated Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (approving presumption of reasonableness for sentences within advisory Guidelines range). We see no basis in the record for concluding that Snyder’s sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (abuse of discretion occurs if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or weighed appropriate factors in clearly erroneous way).

After reviewing 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 non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable George Howard, Jr., late a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.