United States v. Edward Swingen, No. 11-1165 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.
Download PDF
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 * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: May 5, 2011 Filed: May 6, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.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. 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-
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.
