United States of America v. Travis Lee Morgan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1669
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Travis Lee Morgan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: December 17, 2025
Filed: January 8, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Travis Morgan appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor. His
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the findings of fact at sentencing
regarding a desktop computer and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err
when it found that the computer in question belonged to Morgan. See United States
v. Dickson, 127 F.4th 722, 727-28 (8th Cir. 2025) (where alleged procedural error at
sentencing is selection of above-Guidelines sentence based on erroneous facts, our
review is for clear error; district court did not clearly err in finding aggravating facts
for purpose of imposing an upward variance). We further conclude that the district
court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court carefully
considered the relevant factors and the aggravating aspects of Morgan’s
circumstances before varying upward to a 60-month prison term based on Morgan’s
troubling conduct and history. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of
discretion, which can occur when district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment
in weighing relevant factors); see also United States v. Mitchell, 825 F.3d 422, 426
(8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (when reviewing above-Guidelines sentence appellate
court must consider extent of deviation but must give due deference to district court’s
decision that sentencing factors justify extent of variance).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --