United States of America v. Christopher Shawn Robison

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3063
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Christopher Shawn Robison
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: April 24, 2013
Filed: April 29, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Robison appeals after he pled guilty to production of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and the district court imposed1
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the1
District of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

a within-Guidelines-range sentence. Robison’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the
district court erred in denying Robison’s motion to dismiss the indictment.
We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Robison’s motion to
dismiss the indictment. See United States v. Lemke, 377 Fed. Appx. 570, 571-72 (8th
Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam) (district court did not err in denying defendant’s
motion to dismiss indictment based on argument that § 2251(a) regulates sexual
activity, not economic activity); see also United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 824
(8th Cir. 2008) (more than one panel of this court has already rejected constitutional
attack that argues mere transportation across state or international lines of cameras
used in manufacture of child pornography does not constitute impact upon interstate
commerce sufficient to form jurisdictional basis upon which Congress could validly
prohibit charged conduct under Commerce Clause). Furthermore, having reviewed
the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no
non-frivolous issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --