United States of America v. Justin Barton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2583
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Justin Barton
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: May 24, 2024
Filed: June 3, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Justin Barton appeals after he pled guilty to receipt and distribution of child
pornography. The district court1 sentenced him within the Guidelines range. His
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable. Barton has filed a supplemental brief, in which he challenges various
aspects of his conviction; argues that the court improperly considered his prior
military conviction in sentencing him; argues that the prosecutor engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct by referring to the military conviction and other facts set
out in the presentence report (PSR); and argues that his counsel was ineffective.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not err in
imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court properly calculated
the Guidelines range and considered relevant factors, and there is no indication the
court overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing the factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures no significant
procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence
under abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to
consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors); United States v.
Canania, 532 F.3d 764, 773 (8th Cir. 2008) (within-Guidelines sentence is
presumptively reasonable on appeal). Contrary to Barton’s contention, the court did
not err by considering his prior military conviction in determining an appropriate
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (court shall consider history and
characteristics of defendant in determining sentence); United States v. Paz, 411 F.3d
906, 909 (8th Cir. 2005) (fact of prior conviction is sentencing factor for court to
consider).
Further, the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct by referring to the
military conviction and other undisputed facts set out in the PSR. See United States
v. Johnson, 695 Fed. Appx. 186, 187 (8th Cir. 2017) (unpublished per curiam)
(defendant’s argument that government’s assertion of facts from PSR constituted
prosecutorial misconduct failed because facts were not disputed at time of
sentencing). As to Barton’s apparent challenges to his conviction, he has waived

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
them by pleading guilty to the offense. See Walker v. United States, 115 F.3d 603,
604 (8th Cir. 1997) (valid guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects). Finally,
to the extent Barton argues that his trial or appellate counsel was ineffective, that
issue is better suited for collateral proceedings. See United States v. Ramirez-
Jimenez, 907 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (in most cases, appellate
counsel will not decide ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal).
This court has also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,
this court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw, and denies Barton’s pending pro se
motions.
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --