United States v. Dustin Rogers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1827
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dustin Wayne Rogers
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: April 12, 2017
Filed: April 17, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Dustin Wayne Rogers pled guilty plea to child-pornography charges. On
appeal, he challenges the sentence that the district court1 imposed. Rogers’s counsel
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), he argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The district court imposed a sentence below the applicable advisory Guidelines
range after discussing, in some detail, the nature and seriousness of the offenses,
Rogers’s personal characteristics, difficult childhood, and admirable military service,
and considered other appropriate sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This
court finds that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States
v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing abuse of discretion);
United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[W]here a
district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is
nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward
still.”). An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues for
appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-