United States v. Clarence Garretson, No. 17-2316 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was substantively reasonable and was not disproportionate to the crimes, given the number of victims, the severity of the abuse and the span of time over which the abuse occurred. [ January 22, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2316 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Clarence C. Garretson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: January 12, 2018 Filed: January 23, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Clarence Garretson challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to transporting minors in interstate 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. 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. Garretson has filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he argues that the district court did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and that the statute of conviction provides for a sentence that is “grossly disproportionate” to the offense, and is overly broad. As to the reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the section 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). As to Garretson’s pro se arguments, we conclude that a life sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the crimes, given the number of victims, the severity of the abuse, and the span of time over which the abuse occurred, see United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); and that the statute is not overly broad, see United States v. Billiot, 785 F.3d 1266, 1269 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). 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.
