United States v. Joshua Smith, No. 15-1995 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Plain error argument concerning restitution award rejected. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1995 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joshua Kain Smith lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 15, 2015 Filed: January 4, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Smith appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court1 after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of an adult and attempted sex trafficking of an 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. adult. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in imposing restitution of $23,406. Because Smith did not object to the amount of restitution at sentencing, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539, 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). We find no such error. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (requiring the court to order that restitution be made to an identifiable victim if the defendant is convicted of, inter alia, a crime of violence). 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 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.