United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1024

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Todd Christopher Smith

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

 Submitted: August 30, 2013

Filed: September 5, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Todd Smith appeals the district court’s1

 judgment entered after a jury found him

guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). 

1

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

Western District of Missouri.
The district court sentenced him to life in prison. Smith’s counsel has moved to

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

claims that insufficient evidence supported the conviction; that the conviction violated

Smith’s rights under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause; that enactment of

section 2251 exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause; and that the

court erred in sentencing Smith to life in prison. In his pro se brief, Smith also raises

the Commerce Clause argument, and argues further that the district court did not have

jurisdiction because 18 U.S.C. § 3231 was not validly enacted, and that counsel was

ineffective for not moving to suppress the search of his cell phone.

We hold that the evidence was sufficient, particularly because Smith admitted

to the elements of the crime at trial. See United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809,

823 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of crime); United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844

(8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). We reject the First Amendment argument, as the

statute is neutral and the Supreme Court has recognized the government’s compelling

interest in protecting children from abuse, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc.

v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993) (neutral and generally applicable statute

need not be justified by compelling government interest even if it incidentally burdens

particular religious practice); Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 109 (1990) (interest in

safeguarding physical and psychological well-being of minors is compelling); and we

have previously rejected the claim that the statute violates the Commerce Clause, see

United States v. Fadl, 498 F.3d 862, 866 (8th Cir. 2007). We find no error in Smith’s

sentence, which was within the properly calculated Guidelines range. See United

States v. Young, 644 F.3d 757, 762 (8th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews substantive

reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and may

apply presumption of reasonableness to sentence within Guidelines range); United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court’s

review of sentence for abuse of discretion includes ensuring no significant procedural

error occured, and considering substantive reasonableness under totality of

circumstances).

-2-
As to Smith’s remaining pro se arguments, we conclude that the jurisdictional

argument is meritless, see United States v. Romero-Galue, 757 F.2d 1147, 1150 n.10

(11th Cir. 1985) (district court “obviously had subject matter jurisdiction” because

Congress, pursuant to § 3231, “conferred upon the federal district courts the power to

adjudicate all cases involving crimes against the United States”), and we decline to

consider on direct appeal his ineffective-assistance claim, see United States v.

Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims

are better raised in habeas proceedings).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment

is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Smith’s appellate

motions.

______________________________

-3-