United States v. Phillip Medley, No. 11-3465 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3465 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Phillip Stephen Medley, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: April 27, 2012 Filed: May 2, 2012 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Phillip Stephen Medley pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and § 2251(a) (Count I), and to a separately occurring child-pornography-production offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b) (Count II). The district court1 sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 25 years on Count I and 20 years on Count II, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief 1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Medley s sentence is unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Medley, and that the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentence for abuse of discretion, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence); see also United States v. Wadena, 470 F.3d 735, 737 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews sentence, including any downward variance, for reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion standard). 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 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.
