Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Zakee SHAREEF, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-10
Citations: 259 F. App'x 897
Docket Number: No. 06-3603
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Zakee SHAREEF, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 897–898

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Zakee SHAREEF, Appellant.
No. 06-3603.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 2, 2008.
Filed: Jan. 10, 2008.
John H. Lammers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux City, LA, for Appellee.
Shelley A. Horak, Horak & Associates, Sioux City, IA, for Appellant.
Zakee Shareef, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Zakee Shareef pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him below the advisory Guidelines range to 165 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Counsel argues that two aspects of the Guidelines violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment—the sentencing disparity between cocaine base and powder cocaine, and the career offender provision—but we have previously rejected each argument in United States v. Thompson, 51 F.3d 122, 127 (8th Cir.1995), and United States v. Foote, 920 F.2d 1395, 1401 (8th Cir.1990), respectively.
Shareef makes three arguments in his pro se supplemental brief. His challenge to the validity of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Torres-Villalobos, 487 F.3d 607, 613 (8th Cir. 2007). His two remaining allegations, about a promised lower sentence and judicial bias, are not supported by the record.
Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel's request to withdraw.
. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.