Case ID: f-appx_469/html/0488-02.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. Brandon DAVIS, Appellant.
    No. 11-3236.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 17, 2012.
    Filed: May 4, 2012.
    Kyra E. Jenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
    John B. Sehisler, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Appellant.
    
      Brandon Davis, Bentonville, AR, pro se.
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After Brandon Davis pleaded guilty to a child-pornography production offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), (e), and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), the district court sentenced him to a total of 480 months in prison, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. 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), arguing that Davis’s sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Davis, and that the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentence for abuse of discretion, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence); see also United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.2011) (district court has wide latitude in weighing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and in assigning some factors greater weight than others).

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 for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.