Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Charles GARREANS Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-20
Citations: 691 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 16-4124
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Charles GARREANS Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Charles GARREANS Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-4124
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2017
Filed: June 20, 2017
Richard E. Rothrock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Council Bluffs, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael Charles Garreans, Pro Se
Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM,
Michael Charles Garreans directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Garreans's 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 sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Counsel's argument fails. Upon review of the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the district court's carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court varied downward from Guidelines range, it is "nearly inconceivable" that it abused its discretion in not varying downward further still).
Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the amended judgment incorrectly cites "18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B)" (prohibiting sale of, or possession with intent to sell, child pornography) as the offense of conviction, and thus we modify the judgment to substitute "18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)" for "18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B)." See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify any judgment brought before it for review).
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment, as modified.
. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.