Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0464-01.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. Olin MILLEN Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-4463
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 7, 2017
    Filed: July 17, 2017
    David A. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Christopher Aaron Holt, John B. Schis-ler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayette-ville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant
    Olin Millen, Pro Se
    Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Olin Millen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Millen’s 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 district court’s determination of Mil-len’s criminal history score and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

We need not reach the.merits of Millen’s argument regarding his criminal history score because any error in assessing two points, instead of one point, for the conviction at issue was harmless. See U.S.S.G. § 5 Sentencing Table; United States v. Gutierrez, 437 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2006) (even if inclusion of two additional criminal history points was error, any such error was harmless because it 'did not affect defendant’s criminal history category and did not alter Guidelines range). Further, after thorough review, we conclude that the district court’s carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. 
      
      . The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.