United States v. Carl Merlo, No. 17-3286 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence, which was a downward variance from defendant's Guidelines range, was not unreasonable. [ April 23, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3286 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carl Merlo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: April 19, 2018 Filed: April 24, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carl Merlo directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a child-pornography charge and the district court1 varied downward from the calculated Guidelines range 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. to impose an 87-month prison term. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Merlo’s sentence is substantively unreasonable, as the court should have varied downward further in light of various mitigating factors. 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 and discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). 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 leave 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.
