Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Edward SWINGEN, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-06
Citations: 416 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 11-1165
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Edward SWINGEN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Edward SWINGEN, Appellant.
No. 11-1165.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 5, 2011.
Filed: May 6, 2011.
Sean R. Berry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.
Jane Kelly, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.
Edward Swingen, Waverly, IA, pro se.
Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward Swingen appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to receipt and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Swingen's sentence.
We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Swingen, and that the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d 906, 909-10 (8th Cir.2007) (explaining that district court's awareness of defendant's arguments precludes conclusion that court abused its discretion in failing to consider them); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.