Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01061/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin Dennis Starr
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1061

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Marvin Dennis Starr, * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: December 26, 2007

Filed: January 15, 2008

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Marvin Dennis Starr guilty of producing child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and possessing child pornography, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). The district court1

 sentenced him below the advisory

Guidelines range to 240 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On

appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and has moved to withdraw. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-1061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2008 Entry ID: 3391812
-2-

Counsel first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the

production conviction because the children produced the images on their own, not at

Starr’s direction. Accepting all of the trial evidence and inferences therefrom that

support the verdict, as we must, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found

Starr guilty. See United States v. Urkevich, 408 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005). The

verdict in this case rested on a credibility determination, which is the province of the

jury and which is virtually unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Davis, 471

F.3d 938, 948 (8th Cir. 2006).

Next, counsel argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by

characterizing Starr as a pedophile and sexual predator, once each during his crossexamination of Starr and his closing argument. Because the defense did not object

below, we review for plain error, and we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments--

even if improper--did not so infect the trial as to render it fundamentally unfair. See

United States v. Mullins, 446 F.3d 750, 757-59 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 284

(2006).

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court

and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2008 Entry ID: 3391812