United States v. Cameron Allen, No. 15-1553 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence, which represented a substantial downward variance, was not unreasonable. [ July 30, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1553 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Cameron Allen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: July 28, 2015 Filed: July 31, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cameron Allen appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed, after he pled guilty to knowingly accessing a facility of interstate commerce 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. with the intent to view images of child pornography. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Allen’s sentence. Allen has not filed a supplemental brief. Upon careful review, we conclude that the 24-month prison term imposed by the district court, which represented a substantial downward variance, is not unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (it is “nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further”). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment. ______________________________ -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.
