United States v. Ian Mackie, No. 16-4535 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, 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. 16-4535 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ian Mackie lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: September 13, 2017 Filed: October 3, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ian Mackie directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to enticement of a minor and receipt of child pornography. Mackie’s 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that Mackie’s sentence, which was imposed within his Sentencing Guidelines range, is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-