Court Opinion

ID: 9410096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 15:01:23.64049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:56.922016
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3643
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Shane William Butler

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                             Submitted: July 17, 2023
                               Filed: July 20, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Shane Butler appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled
guilty to conspiracy to produce child pornography and child exploitation, pursuant

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

       Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing substantive reasonableness under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; district court abuses its discretion when it
fails to consider a relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant fact, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors);
see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting
when a district court has varied below the United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion by not
varying further).

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

                                         -2-