United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1711

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Sean Gerald Penoncello

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: December 7, 2016

Filed: December 9, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Sean Penoncello directly appeals the district court’s1

 judgment entered after a

jury found him guilty of producing and possessing child pornography, in violation of

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) & (e) and 2252(a)(4)(B) & (b)(2). Penoncello’s counsel has

filed a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging (1) the

sufficiency of the evidence, (2) the admission of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

404(b) evidence, (3) the government’s alleged intimidation of an alibi witness, and (4)

the reasonableness of Penoncello’s sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

This court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable

to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and

accepting all reasonable inferences that support the jury’s verdict. See United States

v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008). The evidence introduced at trial was

ample to support the jury’s verdict, notwithstanding Penoncello’s argument that law

enforcement officials should have attempted to find DNA or fingerprint evidence on

two thumb drives found hidden in a dryer vent during a search of his residence. See

United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937, 945-46 (8th Cir.) (possession conviction),

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 149 (2014); United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809, 823 (8th

Cir. 2011) (production conviction). In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the

district court’s admission of Rule 404(b) evidence that was not unduly prejudicial, and

that was probative of Penoncello’s ownership and use of the thumb drives. See United

States v. Grant, 721 F.3d 505, 509 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing admission of Rule

404(b) evidence for abuse of discretion, and noting that court will reverse only when

evidence had no bearing on case and was introduced solely to show defendant’s

propensity to engage in criminal misconduct). We further see no evidence that the

government violated Penoncello’s right to due process by interfering with any defense

witness’s choice to testify. Cf. United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (7th

Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (substantial government interference with defense witness’s

free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process). We conclude, as well,

that Penoncello’s 400-month prison sentence is not unreasonable. See United States

v. Young, 644 F.3d 757, 762 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).

-2-
In a pro se supplemental brief, Penoncello argues that his counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance. That argument is not appropriate for consideration, however,

in this direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th

Cir. 2005). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. 

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-3-