United States v. Kevin Watkins, No. 17-1989 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as it properly considered the 3553(a) factors and did not overlook a relevant factor or make a clear error in weighing them.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1989 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kevin Matthew Watkins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: November 16, 2017 Filed: November 30, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Kevin Watkins challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to possession of child pornography. 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing the reasonableness of the sentence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Watkins, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
