Court Opinion

ID: 9940036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 17:01:09.10482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:53.613471
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1560
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                              Brandon Scott Holmes

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Western
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 8, 2024
                            Filed: February 13, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Brandon Holmes received a 295-month prison sentence and an order to pay
$60,000 in restitution after he pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child. See
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). In a pair of Anders briefs, Holmes’s counsel discusses two
issues: the lack of statutory authority for the restitution award and the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
       The restitution challenge has been waived, see United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 733 (1993), and the sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the
reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion). The record establishes that
the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of
judgment. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461–62; see also United States v. Palkowitsch,
36 F.4th 796, 802–03 (8th Cir. 2022).

       We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other
non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission
to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
                                      -2-