United States v. Peng Chanthalangsy, No. 18-1175 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. By withdrawing his objections to the presentence report defendant waived any claim of error concerning the district court's adoption of the relevant statements of fact in the report; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1175 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Peng Chanthalangsy lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: August 16, 2018 Filed: August 27, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Peng Chanthalangsy directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to a child-pornography charge. His 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Chanthalangsy’s sentence is substantively unreasonable, as the district court gave too much weight to certain statements in the presentence report regarding the means by which Chanthalangsy accessed child pornography. After careful consideration, we conclude that Chanthalangsy—by withdrawing his objections to the presentence report at sentencing—waived any claim of error concerning the district court’s adoption of the relevant statements of facts in the presentence report. Cf. United States v. White, 447 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that the defendant, by acknowledging that the facts set forth in the presentence report were correct, effectively withdrew his objections to those facts and thereby waived his right to argue his objections on appeal). We further conclude that Chanthalangsy’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). 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-