Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Delvico BORDEN, also known as James Delvoico Borden, also known as Earl Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-25
Citations: 688 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 16-2571
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Delvico BORDEN, also known as James Delvoico Borden, also known as Earl Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Delvico BORDEN, also known as James Delvoico Borden, also known as Earl Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-2571
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 4, 2017
Filed: May 25, 2017
Jim Lynn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
James Delvico Borden, Pro Se
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Delvico Borden directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug charges. His counsel has moved for leave 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 a sentencing enhancement, suggesting that the district court miscalculated the Guidelines imprisonment range, and arguing that Borden's sentence is substantively unreasonable. Borden has filed a pro se brief making essentially the same arguments.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in applying the challenged sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2009) (failure to object at sentencing results in review for plain error that affects substantial rights); United States v. Menteer, 408 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unob-jected-to facts in presentence report are deemed admitted). We further conclude that the district court did not plainly err in calculating the Guidelines imprisonment range, or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); Lovelace, 565 F.3d at 1087; see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Cb 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.
. The Honorable Brian C, Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.