United States v. Donald L. Snyder, No. 06-3284 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3284 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Donald L. Snyder, Appellant. * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: October 23, 2007 Filed: October 26, 2007 ___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Donald Snyder appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). At sentencing, the court discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly emphasizing the need for general deterrence, and sentenced Snyder to 78 months in prison (the bottom of the applicable advisory Guidelines range), followed by 3 years of supervised release. Snyder s counsel has moved to withdraw and, in a 1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., late a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questions the reasonableness of Snyder s sentence. We view a sentence within the correctly calculated Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (approving presumption of reasonableness for sentences within advisory Guidelines range). We see no basis in the record for concluding that Snyder s sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion occurs if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or weighed appropriate factors in clearly erroneous way). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave 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.
