Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02340/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02340-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith E. Hawkman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2340

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Keith E. Hawkman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 21, 2010

Filed: February 1, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Keith Hawkman guilty of engaging in a sexual act with a person

who was unable to comprehend or resist the sexual act, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1153, 2242(2), and 2246(2)(A). The district court1

 sentenced him to 210 months

in prison. Hawkman appeals. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting leave to withdraw and arguing that

Hawkman’s sentence is excessive.

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

Appellate Case: 08-2340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629777
We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Hawkman’s sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, as the court did not

commit procedural error, and the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (listing factors that

constitute abuse of discretion; citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). 

The court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the sentencing factors

set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), specifically discussed Hawkman’s drinking and the

victims of his crimes, and noted his positive behavior on pretrial detention and the

serious nature of his crime. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.

2009) (where record reflects district court made individualized assessment based on

facts presented, specifically addressing defendant’s proffered information in its

consideration of sentencing factors, sentence is not unreasonable), petition for cert.

filed, (U.S. Dec. 11, 2009) (No. 09-8153); United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d

579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according presumption of reasonableness to sentence at

bottom of Guidelines range).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment

is affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 08-2340 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629777