Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Benjamin WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-05
Citations: 595 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 14-2368
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Benjamin WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 595
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Benjamin WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-2368.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 13, 2015.
Filed: March 5, 2015.
Dan Chatham, U.S. Attorney’s Office, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John D. Jacobsen, Jacobsen & Johnson, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Benjamin Walker, argued, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin Walker directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related conspiracy charge, and the district court sentenced him to a prison term within the calculated Guidelines range. Walker'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 substantive reasonableness of Walker's sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Walker. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences); see also United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir.2009) (district court has wide latitude to weigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors); cf. United States v. Pilcher, 587 Fed.Appx. 349, 350 (8th Cir.2014) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming where district court declined to apply then-proposed Guidelines Amendment 782; citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). In addition, 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 have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
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.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.