United States v. Joshua Thomas, No. 15-3500 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3500 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joshua Thomas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: March 23, 2016 Filed: March 28, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Thomas directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. We conclude that the belowGuidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (when downward variance is granted, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abuses discretion in not varying downward further). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
