Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02500/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02500-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benedict Lovejoy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2500

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Benedict Lovejoy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2007

Filed: June 6, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Benedict Lovejoy appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(1), 2241(c), and 2246(3). In a brief filed under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the 120-month prison sentence

is excessive and an abuse of discretion.

Appellate Case: 06-2500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316648
-2-

We disagree. In sentencing Lovejoy to the statutory maximum (which was also

the undisputed advisory Guidelines sentence), the district court properly considered

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and nothing in the record indicates that the sentence

is unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (sentences

are reviewed for unreasonableness; § 3553(a) factors will guide appellate courts in

determining whether sentence is unreasonable); United States v. Mathis, 451 F.3d 939,

941 (8th Cir. 2006) (reasonableness review is akin to review for abuse of discretion);

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion may

occur if court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant

weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only

appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in weighing them). Further,

the sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the crime. See United States v. Collins,

340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences

that are grossly disproportionate to crime); United States v. No Neck, 472 F.3d 1048,

1055 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming sentence of 292 months in prison and lifetime of

supervised release for defendant convicted of abusive sexual contact and aggravated

sexual abuse).

As for Lovejoy’s pro se assertion that trial counsel’s representation was lacking,

ineffective-assistance claims are more properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceedings, where the record can be developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330

F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316648