Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher Mark KERN, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-05
Citations: 409 F. App'x 32
Docket Number: No. 10-1982
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher Mark KERN, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 32–33

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher Mark KERN, Appellant.
No. 10-1982.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 3, 2010.
Filed: Nov. 5, 2010.
Mary Clare Luxa, Maureen McGuire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellee.
Christopher Mark Kern, Des Moines, IA, pro se.
John P. Messina, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Mark Kern appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and a forfeiture count. 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), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.
We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion).
Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.