On appeal from The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-13-2022

Case Style:

United States of America v. Clarence Garretson

Child Sexual Predator

Case Number: 17-2316

Judge: efore WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM


United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
On appeal from The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:

St. Louis, MO - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement


MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800


St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with transporting minors in interstate commerce for criminal sexual activity.

In this direct criminal appeal, Clarence Garretson challenges the sentence the
district court1
imposed following his guilty plea to transporting minors in interstate
commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. His counsel has
moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), discussing the reasonableness of the sentence. Garretson has filed a pro se
supplemental brief, in which he argues that the district court did not properly consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and that the statute of conviction provides for a
sentence that is “grossly disproportionate” to the offense, and is overly broad

As to the reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the section 3553(a) factors; there
was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 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).
As to Garretson’s pro se arguments, we conclude that a life sentence is not
grossly disproportionate to the crimes, given the number of victims, the severity of the
abuse, and the span of time over which the abuse occurred, see United States v. Scott,
610 F.3d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); and that the statute is not
overly broad, see United States v. Billiot, 785 F.3d 1266, 1269 (8th Cir. 2015)
(standard of review).

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 grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case