United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3611 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jade Daniel Joseph Monahan

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________

Submitted: March 30, 2022 Filed: April 4, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Jade Monahan appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he was found guilty by a jury of committing a child pornography offense. He argues that the

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence after giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors such as his addictions to alcohol and Adderall, his offense conduct being limited to receipt, and his relatively minor criminal history.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Monahan’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (court of appeals reviews reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d 1167, 1169 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing those factors); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (sentence that falls within Guidelines range is presumed to be reasonable). The court made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court makes individualized assessment of § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented, sentence is not unreasonable).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-2-