United States v. Edward Swingen

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, RAYMOND W. GRUENDER and DUANE BENTON (UNPUBLISHED) [3784709] [11-1165]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-1165
___________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Edward Swingen,
Appellant.

*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Northern
* District of Iowa.
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
*
___________
Submitted: May 5, 2011
Filed: May 6, 2011
___________

Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Edward Swingen appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled
guilty to receipt and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). Counsel has moved to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the reasonableness of Swingen’s sentence.

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 11-1165

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/06/2011 Entry ID: 3784709

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing
Swingen, and that the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first
ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then
considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard);
United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d 906, 909-10 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining that district
court’s awareness of defendant’s arguments precludes conclusion that court abused
its discretion in failing to consider them); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004
(8th Cir. 2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at
sentencing).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 11-1165

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/06/2011 Entry ID: 3784709