United States v. Michael Garreans, No. 16-4124 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable or an abuse of the district court's discretion. [ June 19, 2017

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4124 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael Charles Garreans lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs ____________ Submitted: June 15, 2017 Filed: June 20, 2017 ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Charles Garreans directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Garreans’s counsel has 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Counsel’s argument fails. Upon review of the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the district court’s carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court varied downward from Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that it abused its discretion in not varying downward further still). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the amended judgment incorrectly cites “18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B)” (prohibiting sale of, or possession with intent to sell, child pornography) as the offense of conviction, and thus we modify the judgment to substitute “18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)” for “18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B).” See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify any judgment brought before it for review). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment, as modified. ______________________________ -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.