United States of America v. Alvan Allen

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3022
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alvan Allen
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: March 25, 2025
Filed: March 28, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Alvan Allen appeals the judgment entered by the district court1 after a bench
trial where he was found guilty of a child pornography offense. His counsel has
1The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the district court’s denial of Allen’s motion to suppress.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Allen’s motion to suppress, as the search warrant was based on probable cause, and
it was not overbroad or lacking in particularity. See United States v. Holly, 983 F.3d
361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review); United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009,
1013 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Summage, 481 F.3d 1075, 1078-80 (8th Cir.
2007). In any event, nothing in the record indicated the officers did not execute the
warrant in good faith. See United States v. Ortiz-Cervantes, 868 F.3d 695, 702 (8th
Cir. 2017). Additionally, the district court did not err in admitting statements Allen
made in his interviews with police, as his first interview was not custodial, and the
police conduct preceding both interviews was valid. See United States v. Martinez,
462 F.3d 903, 908-09 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Smith, 715 F.3d 1110,
1118 n.5 (8th Cir. 2013).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment and grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --