United States v. Bruce Stile


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, STEVEN M. COLLOTON and JAMES B. LOKEN (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3761374-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Jill M. Johnston conditioned upon counsel informing appellant of the procedures for filing a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Part V of the CJA Act. [3794297] [11-1167]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1167 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Bruce Lee Stiles, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: May 26, 2011 Filed: June 6, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After Bruce Stiles pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1), the district court1 sentenced him within the Guidelines range to 225 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Stiles’s sentence is unreasonable. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 11-1167 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2011 Entry ID: 3794297 Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Stiles. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews sentencing decision for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence). The court did not commit any procedural error. See id. (describing factors that demonstrate procedural error). As to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we find nothing suggesting that the court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or clearly erred in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentence within Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness on appeal; describing circumstances in which court abuses its discretion, resulting in substantively unreasonable sentence); cf. United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625, 63435 (8th Cir. 2010) (concluding that within-Guidelines-range sentence was reasonable, notwithstanding testimony of defendant’s expert who believed term of imprisonment was unnecessary), cert. denied, 79 USLW 3592 (Apr. 18, 2011). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel leave to withdraw subject to her informing Stiles about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-1167 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2011 Entry ID: 3794297

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?