United States v. Christopher Peck, No. 17-2147 (8th Cir. 2018)
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 evaluating the 3553(a) factors, and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2147 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher Peck lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: December 28, 2017 Filed: January 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Christopher Peck challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to child pornography charges. His 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 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, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; 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); and the sentence was within the Guidelines range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). 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 to withdraw, 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.
