United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3163
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Dennis Clark
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: August 17, 2018
Filed: August 22, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After a jury found Michael Clark guilty of distributing and possessing child
pornography, the district court1 sentenced him to 120 months in prison. Clark’s
1
The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court improperly received
into evidence Twitter images and messages that predated the indictment period, and
that the sentence was unreasonable.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting into evidence the disputed Twitter images and messages, see
United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504, 511 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), as the
evidence was presented to show that Clark had control over his Twitter account, and
that the child pornography sent during the indictment period was not sent accidently,
see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act may be admitted to
prove, inter alia, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident); and the district
court gave limiting instructions to the jury that mitigated any possible prejudice, see
United States v. Ellis, 817 F.3d 570, 580 (8th Cir. 2016) (prejudicial effect of
admitting Rule 404(b) evidence was mitigated by district court’s limiting instruction
to the jury that it could consider the evidence only to determine “knowledge, motive,
absence of mistake, accident or intent”).
We further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable
sentence, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant section 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553 factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see
United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review);
United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was
within the Guidelines range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th
Cir. 2014). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-