United States v. Ben Culbertson, No. 17-2876 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing certain special conditions of supervised release. [ March 19, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2876 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ben Culbertson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: March 15, 2018 Filed: March 21, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ben Culbertson pleaded guilty to a child-pornography charge and now appeals his sentence. The district court1 sentenced him to 264 months in prison—near the low 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. end of his sentencing guidelines range—to be followed by supervised release for life, with conditions. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the prison term and the propriety of two special conditions of supervised release. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness; and noting that if the defendant’s sentence is within the guidelines range, then the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the two challenged special conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Godfrey, 863 F.3d 1088, 1101 (8th Cir. 2017) (stating that this court reviews the imposition of special conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (setting forth general criteria for special conditions of supervised release); cf. United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493-94 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing polygraph testing as a special condition of supervised release); United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing restrictions on internet usage as a special condition of supervised release). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we 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.
