United States v. Sira Noithip, No. 09-3474 (8th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3474 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Sira Noithip, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: May 21, 2010 Filed: May 26, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Sira Noithip appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court1 after he pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. ยง 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court's sentence is unreasonable. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The court did not commit any procedural error, see United States v. Toothman, 543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (describing factors that demonstrate procedural error), and its carefully explained sentence at the bottom of the applicable range was not unreasonable, see United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according presumption of reasonableness to sentence at bottom of Guidelines range); United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.) (listing circumstances where sentencing court abuses its discretion resulting in unreasonable sentence), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 927 (2007). Further, 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, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ____________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.