United States of America v. Zachary Bradley

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2392
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Zachary Bradley
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: March 11, 2025
Filed: March 14, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Zachary Bradley appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to child pornography offenses and attempted sex
1 The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
trafficking of a minor. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively
unreasonable. Bradley has filed a supplemental pro se brief, raising a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not impose
a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence
was below the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v.
Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in
weighing relevant factors; downward variance substantively reasonable where court
carefully considered § 3553(a) factors); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119,
1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (when district court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly
inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further). This court
declines to address Bradley’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United
States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-
assistance claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be
properly developed).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --