# 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____________ Submitted: December 7, 2016 Filed: December 9, 2016 [Unpublished]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’s 1 judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of producing and po ssessing 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 a libi 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 c onflicts in favor of the government, and accepting all reasonable inferences thatsupport 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, notw ithstanding Penoncello’s argument that law enforcement officials should have attemp ted to find DNA or fingerprint evidence on two thumb drives found hidden ina dryer vent during a searchof 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 additi on, 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 owners hip 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, a nd 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 misconduc t). We further see no evidence that the government violated Penoncello’s right to due process by interferi ng with any defense witness’s choice to testify. Cf. United States v. Henricksen , 564 F.2d 197, 198 (7th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (substantial governme nt interference with defense witness’s free and unhampered choice to testify violat es due process). We conclude, as well, that Penoncello’s 400-month prison sentence is not unreasonable. SeeUnited States v. Young , 644 F.3d 757, 762 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).

-2-In a pro se supplemental brief, Penon cello argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. That argument is not appropriate for c onsideration, 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-