Filed: Jan. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-2173 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Scott Allen Gibbons lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs _ Submitted: December 30, 2013 Filed: January 9, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Scott Gibbons pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography in violat
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-2173 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Scott Allen Gibbons lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs _ Submitted: December 30, 2013 Filed: January 9, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Scott Gibbons pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography in violati..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2173
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Scott Allen Gibbons
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs
____________
Submitted: December 30, 2013
Filed: January 9, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Scott Gibbons pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The district court1 imposed a sentence of 168 months in prison
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal, Gibbons’s counsel has filed a brief
under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals
of sentencing.
We will apply a presumption of reasonableness to the sentence, which fell
within the uncontested Guidelines range, and we therefore conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 461
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Further, having independently
reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no
nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-2-