United States v. Leeman Patrick, II, No. 11-3136 (8th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal Case - Anders. District court committed no significant procedural error in sentencing and sentence is substantively reasonable. [ March 06, 2012

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3136 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Leeman Joseph Patrick II, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: February 29, 2012 Filed: March 7, 2012 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Leeman Patrick II pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. ยง 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). The district court1 sentenced him to 108 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel have moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the sentence was unreasonable. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. We disagree. The district court committed no significant procedural error in sentencing Mr. Patrick, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing procedural error), and the sentence was substantively reasonable, see United States v. Hubbard, 638 F.3d 866, 870-71 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and according presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines range). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.