United States v. Warren Nelson Anderson, Jr., No. 18-1726 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's below agreed-upon Guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1726 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Warren Nelson Anderson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: December 4, 2018 Filed: January 14, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Warren Nelson Anderson, Jr. directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. In a brief filed 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Anderson argues that his sentence of 90 months in prison, below the agreed-upon Guidelines imprisonment range of 121 to 151 months, is substantively unreasonable, essentially relying on a policy-based challenge to the Guidelines in child pornography cases, see United States v. Collins, 828 F.3d 386, 389 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting plausibility of rejecting Guidelines sentencing ranges in child pornography cases based on policy disagreements). Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that, after a court of appeals ensures that the district court committed no significant procedural error, sentences are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). In addition, after independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
