United States v. Donald Gorge , 458 F. App'x 578 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-2732
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Donald Douglas Gorge,                   *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 5, 2012
    Filed: April 10, 2012
    ___________
    Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In accordance with a plea agreement, Donald Gorge pleaded guilty to attempted
    receipt of child pornography in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2252
    (a)(2). This subjected
    him to a statutory imprisonment range of 5-20 years. The district court1 calculated a
    Guidelines range of 210-240 months, and sentenced him to 180 months in prison. On
    appeal, Gorge’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), in which she seeks to withdraw and challenges the reasonableness of the
    1
    The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    sentence. In supplemental pro se submissions, Gorge challenges his sentence and
    asserts that counsel was ineffective.
    We conclude the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing
    Gorge, and--in light of the evidence presented--imposed a substantively reasonable
    sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007); United States v. Alvarez,
    
    478 F.3d 864
    , 868-69 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Belflower, 
    390 F.3d 560
    , 562
    (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). We decline to review Gorge’s ineffective-assistance
    claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 
    419 F.3d 781
    , 788-89
    (8th Cir. 2005).
    Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to
    withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2732

Citation Numbers: 458 F. App'x 578

Judges: Bye, Colloton, Gruender, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/10/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024