Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas LINDLEY, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-28
Citations: 481 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 11-3833
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas LINDLEY, Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 294–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas LINDLEY, Appellant.
No. 11-3833.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 1, 2012.
Filed: June 28, 2012.
David A. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
Thomas Lindley, Calico Rock, AR, pro se.
John B. Schisler, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Appellant.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Lindley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and 924(a)(2). The district court concluded that he was an armed career criminal, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), and sentenced him to 180 months in prison, the statutory minimum. On appeal, Lindley's counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and seeks to withdraw. After careful review, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel argues that Lindley's prior offenses were not violent felonies because his family members were the victims in at least two of Lindley's four burglary convictions, and his robbery conviction did not involve a weapon. This argument fails. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B); United States v. Sawyer, 588 F.3d 548, 556 (8th Cir.2009); United States v. Williams, 537 F.3d 969, 971 (8th Cir.2008). We also find no merit to counsel's argument that the court treat ed the Guidelines as mandatory, given that the court sentenced Lindley to the statutory minimum sentence and lacked the authority in these circumstances to depart below the minimum. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003).
Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
. The HONORABLE PAUL K. HOLMES, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.