Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Austin Adolf ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-09
Citations: 533 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 13-1741
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Austin Adolf ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 533
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Austin Adolf ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-1741.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 2, 2013.
Filed: Oct. 9, 2013.
Benjamin Wulff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bruce Eddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Angela Lorene Pitts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Austin Alexander appeals from the thirty-month sentence that the District Court imposed after Alexander pleaded guilty to manufacturing counterfeit currency, 18 U.S.C. § 471. On appeal, Alexander'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 the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentences under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and noting that if a sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (explaining that if an appellant does not argue that the district court committed procedural error, we proceed directly to a review of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence).
We have reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Alexander's sentence, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.