Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ben CULBERTSON Defendant-Appellant
[Unpublished]
Ben Culbertson pleaded guilty to a child-pornography charge and now appeals his sentence. The district court 1 sentenced him to 264 months in prison—near the low end of his sentencing guidelines range—to be followed by supervised release for life, with conditions. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the prison term and the propriety of two special conditions of supervised release.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness; and noting that if the defendant’s sentence is within the guidelines range, then the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the two challenged special conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Godfrey, 863 F.3d 1088, 1101 (8th Cir. 2017) (stating that this court reviews the imposition of special conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (setting forth general criteria for special conditions of supervised release); cf. United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493-94 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing polygraph testing as a special condition of supervised release); United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing restrictions on internet usage as a special condition of supervised release).
In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-2876
Decided: March 21, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)