United States v. Christopher Robison


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3978742-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Manvir Kaur Atwal. [4029992] [12-3063]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3063 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher Shawn Robison lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: April 24, 2013 Filed: April 29, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Robison appeals after he pled guilty to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and the district court1 imposed 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Appellate Case: 12-3063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 Entry ID: 4029992 a within-Guidelines-range sentence. Robison’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court erred in denying Robison’s motion to dismiss the indictment. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Robison’s motion to dismiss the indictment. See United States v. Lemke, 377 Fed. Appx. 570, 571-72 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam) (district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss indictment based on argument that § 2251(a) regulates sexual activity, not economic activity); see also United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir. 2008) (more than one panel of this court has already rejected constitutional attack that argues mere transportation across state or international lines of cameras used in manufacture of child pornography does not constitute impact upon interstate commerce sufficient to form jurisdictional basis upon which Congress could validly prohibit charged conduct under Commerce Clause). Furthermore, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-3063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 Entry ID: 4029992

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?