Case ID: f-appx_681/html/0575-01.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. Nathan Adam SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-3493
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 21, 2017
    Filed: March 30, 2017
    Virginia Bruner, Marc Krickbaum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Nathan Adam Smith, Pro Se
    Before RILEY, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Nathan Smith challenges the district court’s below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed following his guilty plea to bank fraud. 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), arguing that Smith’s sentence is substantively unreasonable because there is undue disparity between Smith’s sentence and the sentences imposed on his co-defendants. In a supplemental brief, Smith joins counsel in challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence based on the more favorable sentences that his co-defendants received.

Having carefully reviewed the district court’s careful articulation at sentencing of the multiple factors that guided the court in fashioning an appropriate sentence, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, we have reviewed the record as required by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.