United States v. Christopher Robison, No. 12-3063 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment in this production of child pornography case. [ April 26, 2013
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District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: April 24, 2013 Filed: April 29, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.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. 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 Appx. 570, 571-72 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam) (district court did not err in denying defendant s motion to dismiss indictment based on argument that § 2251(a) regulates sexual activity, not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-
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.
