Court Opinion

ID: 9386457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 16:00:43.57456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.624197
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3106
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                              Kendal Duane Letcher

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                             Submitted: April 7, 2023
                              Filed: April 12, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Kendal Letcher appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense. His counsel has moved for leave to

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences
are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment
in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the
Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir.
2013).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-