Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02376/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Travis Daniels
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2376

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Ronald Travis Daniels, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 18, 2010

Filed: February 25, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Daniels appeals from the 168-month sentence that the District Court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography. Counsel has moved

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In

an untimely pro se supplemental brief, which we grant Daniels leave to file, he argues

that (1) the District Court erred in applying a base offense level of 32 and a 2-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A); (2) his sentence is unreasonable; and

Appellate Case: 08-2376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638191
-2-

(3) the government breached its promise that he would receive a five-year sentence

in exchange for his plea. We reject these arguments, and we affirm. 

First, because Daniels did not object to the Guidelines calculations in the

District Court, we review only for plain error, and we find none. See United States

v. Nichols, 151 F.3d 850, 854 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review). The facts support

the base offense level and the 2-level enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c) (noting

that § 2G2.1 applies "[i]f the offense involved causing . . . a minor to engage in

sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such

conduct"); U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(a), (b)(2)(A) (setting base offense level of 32 and

requiring 2-level increase if offense involved "sexual contact"); U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 cmt.

n.2 ("'Sexual contact' has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 2246(3).").

Second, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States

v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United

States v. Toothman, 543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2008) ("A sentence within the

Sentencing Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness

on appeal . . . ."). Third, the record refutes Daniels’s argument that the government

induced his plea with promises of a five-year sentence. See Blackledge v. Allison,

431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) ("Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong

presumption of verity.").

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,

we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638191