Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02309/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abigail Margarete Knight
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 24-2309

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Abigail Margarete Knight

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: December 4, 2024

Filed: December 9, 2024

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Abigail Knight appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1

imposed after she pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography. Having 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1

The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 24-2309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024 Entry ID: 5464052
-2- 

Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively 

unreasonable. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did 

not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor,

or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence 

was below the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 

455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v. 

Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in 

weighing relevant factors); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th 

Cir. 2013) (when district court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly 

inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further). 

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 24-2309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2024 Entry ID: 5464052