Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesse OZIAH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-25
Citations: 600 F. App'x 1013
Docket Number: No. 14-2992
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesse OZIAH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 1013–1013

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesse OZIAH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-2992.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2015.
Filed: March 25, 2015.
Dustin S. Roberts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, Benjamin Wulff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jesse Oziah, Marianna, FL, pro se.
John B. Schisler, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BYE, COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jesse Oziah directly appeals after he pled guilty to charges relating to production of child pornography, and the district court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment below his calculated Guidelines range. 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), suggesting the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Oziah.
We have carefully reviewed the district court's sentencing decision and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Moreover, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and conclude that there are no nonfrivolous 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 Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.