United States v. Michael Garreans , 691 F. App'x 287 ( 2017 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4124
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Charles Garreans
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs
____________
Submitted: June 15, 2017
Filed: June 20, 2017
____________
Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Charles Garreans directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range
sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Garreans’s counsel has
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(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 (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.
______________________________
-2-