Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03474/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03474-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sira Noithip
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3474

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Sira Noithip, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 21, 2010

Filed: May 26, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sira Noithip appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)

and (a)(4)(B). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court's sentence is unreasonable.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the District Court did

not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 09-3474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2010 Entry ID: 3668285
-2-

2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The court did not commit any procedural error,

see United States v. Toothman, 543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (describing factors

that demonstrate procedural error), and its carefully explained sentence at the bottom

of the applicable range was not unreasonable, see United States v. Sicaros-Quintero,

557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according presumption of reasonableness to

sentence at bottom of Guidelines range); United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175,

1177 (8th Cir.) (listing circumstances where sentencing court abuses its discretion

resulting in unreasonable sentence), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 927 (2007).

Further, 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: 09-3474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2010 Entry ID: 3668285