Brian Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-3236
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Arkansas.
Brandon Davis, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 17, 2012
Filed: May 4, 2012
___________
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
After Brandon Davis pleaded guilty to a child-pornography production offense,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), (e), and possession of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), the district court sentenced him to a total of1
480 months in prison, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. On appeal, his
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Davis’s sentence is unreasonable.
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Davis, and that the court imposed a substantively reasonable
sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(in reviewing sentence for abuse of discretion, appellate court first ensures that
district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers
substantive reasonableness of sentence); see also United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d
754, 757 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court has wide latitude in weighing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and in assigning some factors greater weight than others).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --