UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON (2019)

[Unpublished]

Warren Nelson Anderson, Jr. directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court ¹ after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Anderson argues that his sentence of 90 months in prison, below the agreed-upon Guidelines imprisonment range of 121 to 151 months, is substantively unreasonable, essentially relying on a policy-based challenge to the Guidelines in child pornography cases, see United States v. Collins, 828 F.3d 386, 389 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting plausibility of rejecting Guidelines sentencing ranges in child pornography cases based on policy disagreements). Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that, after a court of appeals ensures that the district court committed no significant procedural error, sentences are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard).

In addition, after independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.