Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy KEMNER, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-03
Citations: 431 F. App'x 517
Docket Number: No. 11-1376
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy KEMNER, Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 517–517

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy KEMNER, Appellant.
No. 11-1376.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2011.
Filed: Oct. 3, 2011.
David R. Mercer, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
James J. Kelleher, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Kemner appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). On appeal, his 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 Kemner's sentence. We conclude, upon careful review, that the district court properly sentenced Kemner and imposed a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews sentencing decision for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence); United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court applies presumption of reasonableness to sentence that reflects proper application of Guidelines, but presumption may be rebutted by reference to factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); defendant must show that district court failed to consider relevant factor, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but nevertheless committed clear error of judgment).
After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Kemner about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari.
. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.