Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Matthew James McCAULEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-10
Citations: 622 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 15-2364
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Matthew James McCAULEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Matthew James McCAULEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-2364.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 4, 2015.
Filed: Nov. 10, 2015.
Dan Chatham, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew James McCauley, Milan, MI, pro se.
John P. Messina, Assistant, James F. Whalen, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Matthew McCauley directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to federal drug and identity-theft charges. 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), challenging the substantive reasonableness of McCauley's sentence. In pro se supplemental briefs, McCauley additionally challenges the district court's determination of the relevant drug quantity for Guidelines purposes.
Upon careful review, we conclude that McCauley's sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review). We furr ther conclude that McCauley's drug-quantity challenge is foreclosed because he stipulated to the drug quantity in a sentencing agreement, which was adopted by the district court. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). 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 nonfrivolous issues.
The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court, for the Northern District of Iowa.