United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3582

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Daniel Arthur Stewart

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

 ____________

Submitted: September 23, 2024

Filed: October 4, 2024 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Daniel Stewart pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, see 18

U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), the district court1

 sentenced him to 84 months in prison, an

1The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.
upward variance from the applicable Guidelines range. He raises some challenges to

his sentence, but none convinces us that he is entitled to relief.

Stewart maintains that "the district court committed procedural error by

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts and failing to adequately explain

the chosen sentence." In his plea agreement, though, he expressly waived any

challenges he might have to "all non-jurisdictional issues," which would necessarily

include assertions of procedural error. The government has persuaded us that Stewart

entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily and that no miscarriage

of justice will result from its enforcement, see United States v. Williams, 81 F.4th

835, 839 (8th Cir. 2023), and Stewart doesn't contend otherwise. So we enforce the

plea agreement and dismiss his procedural-error contentions.

Stewart also says that the chosen sentence is substantively unreasonable, a

matter he expressly reserved from his appeal waiver. We review the substantive

reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Cruz, 38

F.4th 729, 732 (8th Cir. 2022). Stewart's Guidelines range was 30–37 months'

imprisonment. According to Stewart, the upward "variance at issue was unreasonable,

yielding a sentence that was more than double the highest end of the Guideline

range."

This wasn't the typical child-pornography-possession case. Stewart conceded

that he had made arrangements to have sexual intercourse with someone whom he

believed was a thirteen-year-old boy and that officers apprehended him when he

arrived at the hotel where he was to meet the boy. (It was only later that police

discovered that Stewart possessed child pornography.) The district court also noted,

correctly, that as "a former judge, prosecutor, and public defender," Stewart "should

be well aware of the magnitude of these crimes and their lasting effect on children."

These circumstances led the government to move for an upward variance to the

statutory-maximum 120 months. And as the district court pointed out, the enticement

-2-
offense with which Stewart was originally charged carried a ten-year minimum

sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). We do not believe that an 84-month sentence in

the circumstances was an abuse of discretion.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.

______________________________

-3-