Case ID: f-appx_612/html/0874-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William ROSE, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-1570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 12, 2015.
    Filed: Aug. 28, 2015.
    Dustin S. Roberts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, Benjamin Wulff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jose Alfaro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    William Rose, Sr., Fayetteville, AR, pro se.
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

• William Rose directly appeals after he pled guilty to a federal child-pornography charge and the district court sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range to eighteen months in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Rose’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rose. See United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009). Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.