United States v. Dustin Rogers, No. 16-1827 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Below-guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1827 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dustin Wayne Rogers lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: April 12, 2017 Filed: April 17, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dustin Wayne Rogers pled guilty plea to child-pornography charges. On appeal, he challenges the sentence that the district court1 imposed. Rogers’s counsel 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. The district court imposed a sentence below the applicable advisory Guidelines range after discussing, in some detail, the nature and seriousness of the offenses, Rogers’s personal characteristics, difficult childhood, and admirable military service, and considered other appropriate sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This court finds that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing abuse of discretion); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still.”). An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
