Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-04011/USCOURTS-ca8-08-04011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Toby L. Rice
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-4011

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Toby L. Rice, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 25, 2010 

Filed: January 29, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Toby L. Rice pleaded guilty to producing child pornography, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2251(a) (Count 1); distributing child pornography over the internet, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (Count 2); and possessing child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4) (Count 3). The district court1

 sentenced him to

240 months in prison on Counts 1 and 2, a concurrent sentence of 120 months in

prison on Count 3, and concurrent life terms of supervised release. In this appeal of

his convictions and sentences, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

Appellate Case: 08-4011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2010 Entry ID: 3629412
-2-

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. In a pro se supplemental brief, Rice

argues that (1) sections 2251(a) and 2252(a) exceed Congress’s Commerce Clause

powers as applied to his case; (2) the district court was unaware of its full sentencing

authority, was confused, and gave the government undue sentencing power; (3) the

sentences are unreasonable; (4) child-pornography sentences violate the Eighth

Amendment; (5) the court erred in admitting sentencing evidence, and a government

witness gave misleading and erroneous testimony; (6) the government acted

vindictively and violated due process by forwarding to the court the final presentence

report (PSR) without allowing Rice to object; and (7) the victim’s change of clothes

between two photographs did not support a 5-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.5(b) for a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.

Rice’s arguments fail, and we reject them seriatim: (1) sections 2251(a) and

2252(a) do not exceed Congress’s Commerce Clause power as applied, see United

States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622, 627-30 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bausch, 140

F.3d 739, 741 (8th Cir. 1998); (2) Rice submitted objections to the PSR, including its

final version, and he did not seek a continuance, see United States v. D’Andrea, 473

F.3d 859, 863 (8th Cir. 2007); (3) Rice has waived any argument that evidence was

improperly admitted, cf. United States v. Comstock, 531 F.3d 667, 675 (8th Cir.)

(where defense counsel stated “no objection” each time government moved to admit

evidence, defendant waived objection to admission of evidence), cert. denied, 129 S.

Ct. 590 (2008); (4) Rice’s assertion that the government witness’s testimony was

misleading and erroneous is entirely conclusory, cf. United States v. King, 518 F.3d

571, 575 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court’s assessment of witness credibility is virtually

unassailable on appeal); (5) the court did not err in applying section 4B1.5(b)(1), see

United States v. Aguilar, 512 F.3d 485, 487 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 113 (2008), because Rice does not challenge the finding that he

engaged in prohibited sexual conduct, and the court did not clearly err in finding that

the conduct occurred on separate occasions, see United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876,

883 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 890 (8th Cir. 2007) (“pattern

Appellate Case: 08-4011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2010 Entry ID: 3629412
-3-

of activity” occurs when defendant engages in prohibited sexual conduct with minor

on at least two separate occasions); (6) there is no indication that the district court was

unaware of its sentencing authority, was confused, or gave the government too much

power; and (7) the sentences are not substantively unreasonable, see Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v.

Raplinger, 555 F.3d 687, 695 (8th Cir.) (district court did not abuse discretion in

imposing prison sentence of 457 months in child pornography case where record

indicated court considered all relevant factors), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2814 (2009);

and do not violate the Eighth Amendment, see United States v. Paton, 535 F.3d 829,

837 (8th Cir. 2008). 

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

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-4011 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2010 Entry ID: 3629412