## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 11 67

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* App el le e, *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern * Dis tri ct of I owa

. Bru ce Lee S ti le s, *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: May 26, 2 01 1 Fi le d: Ju ne 6, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Afte r Bru ce St il es pl ead ed gu il ty to rece iv in g ch il d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S. C

. § 2 25 2A( a)(2 )(A), (b )(1 ), th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m wit hi n th e 1 Gui de li ne s ran ge to 22 5 m on t h s i n p r is on

. On ap pe al , hi s co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 (1 96 7) , arg ui ng th at Sti le s’s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le

.

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t c o u rt di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng St il es

. See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en b an c) (ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie ws se nt en ci ng de ci si on fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, fir st en su rin g th at di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r,
an d th en co ns id eri ng su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of se nt en ce). The co ur t d i d no t

co m m it an y pr oc ed ur al erro r. See id

. (d es cri bi ng fact or s th at de m on st rat e pr oc ed ur al

erro r). As to th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce, we fin d no t h in g
su gg es ti ng th at th e co ur t fai le d to co ns id er a rel ev an t se n t e n c i n g fact or , ga ve si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er fact or , or cl earl y e r r e d in weig hi ng ap pr op ria te fact or s. See Uni te d St at es v. Peck , 49 6 F.3 d 88 5 , 89 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (s en te nc e wit hi n Gui de li ne s ran ge is cl oa ke d in pr es um pt io n of rea s on ab le ne ss on ap pe al ; de sc rib in g ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch co ur t a b u s e s it s di sc ret io n, res ul ti ng in

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce); cf. Uni ted St at es v. D ee ga n, 60 5 F.3 d 62 5, 63 4- 35 (8th Ci r. 2010 ) (c onc lud ing that wit hi n- Gui de li ne s- ran ge se nt en ce was reas on ab le , no twi th st an di ng te st im on y of de fen da nt ’s ex pe rt who be li ev ed te rm of im pr is on m en t

was un ne ces sa ry ), cert . den ie d, 7 9 USLW 35 92 (Apr . 18 , 20 11 ).

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 , 80 (1 98 8) , we ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es fo r ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t an d gr an t c o u n s e l l eav e to wit hd raw su bjec t to he r in fo rm in g St il es ab ou t t he pro ced ur es for see ki ng reh eari ng an d p et it io ni ng for a writ of c ert io rari

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

- 2

-