United States of America v. Michael Heinitz

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1292
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Heinitz
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: August 21, 2024
Filed: August 28, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Heinitz appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)
1The Honorable Charles J. Williams, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

and (e). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Heinitz’s 360-month prison term is
substantively unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Heinitz within the properly calculated Guidelines range. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard
of review). The record shows that the district court considered and rejected, in light
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, defense counsel’s arguments in support of a
downward variance based on Heinitz’s young adulthood, immaturity, and acceptance
of responsibility, and nothing in the record indicates that the district court overlooked
a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error
of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See id. at 461; see also United States
v. Acosta, 619 F.3d 956, 962-63 (8th Cir. 2010) (denial of request for downward
variance reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v.
Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008) (on appeal, reviewing court may presume
sentence within properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --