Opinion
No. 17-3286
04-24-2018
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carl Merlo Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville [Unpublished] Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Carl Merlo directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a child-pornography charge and the district court varied downward from the calculated Guidelines range to impose an 87-month prison term. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Merlo's sentence is substantively unreasonable, as the court should have varied downward further in light of various mitigating factors.
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. --------
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the Guidelines range, it is "nearly inconceivable" that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).
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 leave to withdraw, and we affirm.