Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0565-01.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. James CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-1794.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 17, 2014.
    Filed: Nov. 17, 2014.
    Thomas S. Rea, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Clark, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Michael J. Fagras, Lampin & Kell, Saint Peters, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and' SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

James Clark directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to drug-conspiracy and gun charges. His counsel 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 court procedurally erred by giving inadequate consideration to Clark’s mental-health issues, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. In addition, counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including Clark’s mental-health issues, and did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Finally, 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 nonfriv-olous issues.

As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

Judge Colloton would grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Eredia, 578 Fed.Appx. 620, 621 (8th Cir.2014) (Colloton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
      
      . The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.