United States of America v. Benjamin Riley Blankenship

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2040
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Benjamin Riley Blankenship
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: May 15, 2026
Filed: June 3, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin Riley Blankenship appeals after he pleaded guilty to receiving and
distributing child pornography and was sentenced to 180 months in prison with 8
years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of a
sentencing enhancement and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

-- 1 of 2 --

We conclude the district court1 did not clearly err by finding that Blankenship
attempted to produce child pornography, and therefore did not err by applying an
enhancement for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or
exploitation of a minor. See United States v. Sanders, 157 F.4th 933, 935 (8th Cir.
2025) (standard of review); United States v. Pierson, 544 F.3d 933, 938 (8th Cir.
2008) (explaining the elements of attempted production of child pornography under
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)); U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) & comment. (n.1). The context of his
undisputed communications with minors on Snapchat was sufficient to demonstrate
that he knowingly attempted to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce them, in at least
two separate instances, to engage in sexually explicit conduct. See, e.g., United
States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433, 439-41 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Stewart, 462
F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir. 2006).
We further conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as the
record shows that the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did
not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors.
Blankenship’s mere disagreement with the weight the court gave to mitigating factors
does not warrant reversal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Palkowitsch, 36
F.4th 796, 802-03 (8th Cir. 2022) (explaining the deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard); see also United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 2012).
Finally, 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 of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --