Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03284/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03284-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald L. Snyder
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., late a United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3284

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Donald L. Snyder, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: October 23, 2007

 Filed: October 26, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Snyder appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 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

Appellate Case: 06-3284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2007 Entry ID: 3366268
-2-

brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (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

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm,

and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2007 Entry ID: 3366268