Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-09
Citations: 710 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 17-1974
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 718–718

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1974
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: February 6, 2018
Filed: February 9, 2018.
Allison Hart Behrens, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thomas Joseph Mehan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, Amanda Schlager Wick, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
Charles Johnson, Pro Se
Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Johnson appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), discussing the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing procedural and substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable). In addition, we have independently-reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm.
. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.