The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed an above-Guidelines sentence imposed on Travis Lee Morgan following his guilty plea to attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor, rejecting his attorney's challenge to both factual findings and the reasonableness of the sentence.
In *United States v. Travis Morgan* (8th Cir. 2026), the three-judge panel issued an unpublished per curiam opinion addressing Morgan's appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case involved Morgan's challenge to his sentence, which exceeded federal sentencing guidelines for his conviction.
Morgan's defense counsel filed what is known as an Anders brief, named after the Supreme Court case *Anders v. California* (1967). Such briefs are typically filed when defense attorneys believe their client's appeal lacks merit but still want to fulfill their obligation to represent their client zealously. The attorney sought permission from the court to withdraw from the case while simultaneously challenging two aspects of Morgan's sentencing.
The appeal centered on two primary issues: factual findings made during sentencing regarding ownership of a desktop computer, and the substantive reasonableness of the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by Chief Judge Stephanie M. Rose of the Southern District of Iowa.
Regarding the computer ownership dispute, the Eighth Circuit applied the "clear error" standard of review, which requires appellate courts to give significant deference to trial court factual findings. Under this standard, an appellate court will only reverse if it has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the computer in question belonged to Morgan.
The circuit court cited *United States v. Dickson* (8th Cir. 2025), a recent precedent addressing similar procedural challenges at sentencing. In *Dickson*, the court established that when defendants allege procedural error based on above-Guidelines sentences founded on erroneous facts, appellate review follows the clear error standard. The *Dickson* court found that district courts do not clearly err when finding aggravating facts that support upward variance from sentencing guidelines.
This legal framework proved decisive in Morgan's case. The Eighth Circuit determined that the district court's factual findings about the computer were sufficiently supported by the evidence presented during sentencing proceedings. The computer's ownership was apparently relevant to establishing aggravating factors that justified the sentence exceeding federal guidelines.
The reasonableness challenge addressed the second prong of modern federal sentencing review. Under current Supreme Court precedent, appellate courts must determine whether sentences are both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Procedural reasonableness focuses on whether the district court followed proper sentencing procedures, while substantive reasonableness examines whether the sentence imposed is appropriate given all relevant factors.
The Eighth Circuit's analysis suggests that Morgan's sentence, while above the calculated Guidelines range, was nonetheless within the bounds of reasonableness given the specific facts of his case. Federal sentencing guidelines provide a starting point for judges, but courts have discretion to impose sentences above or below the guidelines when circumstances warrant such variance.
Child exploitation cases frequently result in above-Guidelines sentences due to the serious nature of these offenses and their impact on victims. Courts often consider factors such as the defendant's criminal history, the scope of the criminal conduct, and potential for rehabilitation when determining appropriate sentences.
The case reflects broader trends in federal appellate practice regarding Anders briefs in criminal cases. When defense attorneys identify potentially frivolous appeals but cannot abandon their clients, Anders briefs provide a procedural mechanism to fulfill ethical obligations while conserving judicial resources. Courts carefully review such briefs to ensure defendants' appellate rights are protected even when appeals may lack obvious merit.
Morgan's case also demonstrates the Eighth Circuit's consistent application of deferential standards when reviewing district court sentencing decisions. The circuit has regularly affirmed above-Guidelines sentences in cases involving crimes against children, reflecting both statutory priorities and judicial recognition of the serious harm caused by such offenses.
The unpublished nature of the opinion means it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases, though it may be cited for its persuasive value. Unpublished opinions are common in straightforward appeals where established legal principles resolve the issues without creating new precedent.
For practitioners handling similar cases, the decision reinforces the difficulty of successfully challenging factual findings made during sentencing proceedings. The clear error standard creates a high bar for appellants, requiring them to demonstrate not merely that alternative factual findings were possible, but that the district court's findings were clearly wrong.
The affirmance concludes Morgan's direct appeal, though he retains the possibility of pursuing collateral challenges through habeas corpus proceedings if he can identify constitutional violations or other fundamental errors in his case.