Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur L. CHARLES, II, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-05
Citations: 400 F. App'x 118
Docket Number: No. 10-2554
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur L. CHARLES, II, Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur L. CHARLES, II, Appellant.
No. 10-2554.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 3, 2010.
Filed: Nov. 5, 2010.
Travis D. Poindexter, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender), for appellant.
David A. Barnes, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Charles challenges the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 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 was greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing its sentence, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (standard of review), because we find no procedural error, see United States v. Toothman, 543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir.2008) (explaining procedural error), and Charles has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-Guidelines-range sentence, see United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896, 901 (8th Cir.2009) (appellate presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.2007) (discussing abuse of discretion). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 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's motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Charles about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.
. The Honorable Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.