Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael D. COLLINS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-09
Citations: 461 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 11-3806
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael D. COLLINS, Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 461
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael D. COLLINS, Appellant.
No. 11-3806.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 7, 2012.
Filed: May 9, 2012.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 27, 2012.
David A. Harris, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
Michael D. Collins, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Michael Collins pleaded guilty to knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced him to 188 months in prison, the low end of the calculated Guidelines range. On appeal, 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 Collins's career-offender status resulted in a Guidelines range that overstated the seriousness of his criminal history, and thus his sentence is unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Collins. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (sentencing decision is reviewed under deferential abuse of discretion standard, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence; describing factors demonstrating procedural error). First, the court committed no significant procedural error in sentencing Collins, and in particular, the court correctly designated him as a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a) (defendant is career offender if, inter alia, he has at least two prior felony convictions for controlled-substance offenses). Further, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.