Case ID: f-appx_639/html/0387-01.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. Timothy COLHOUR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-3892.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 15, 2016.
    Filed: April 20, 2016.
    Kimberly Nicole Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jose Alfaro, Assistant, Anna Marie Williams, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Timothy Colhour, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
    Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Timothy Colhour directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine and using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. 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 the district court abused its discretion by denying a downward variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a variance, as nothing in the record indicated the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable, and the court adequately explained its reasons for denying it. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir.2012) (treating within-Guidelines sentence as presumptively reasonable on appeal); United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 608 (8th Cir.2009) (upholding denial of downward variance where court considered sentencing factors and properly explained rationale). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

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