United States of America v. Darling Antonio Mejia-Molina

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2470
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Darling Antonio Mejia-Molina
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: December 21, 2012
Filed: January 8, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Darling Mejia-Molina appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district
court imposed after he pled guilty to knowing receipt of child pornography. On1
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning the procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness of
Mejia-Molina’s sentence, and suggesting that the court did not properly consider the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, properly considered and weighed appropriate sentencing
factors, and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate court’s review
of sentence for abuse of discretion includes (1) ensuring no significant procedural
error occurred, and (2) considering substantive reasonableness of sentence under
totality of circumstances; court abuses discretion when it fails to consider relevant
factor, gives significant weight to irrelevant or improper factor, or considers
appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors; if
sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply
presumption of reasonableness).
Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel
informing Mejia-Molina about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition
for certiorari.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --