Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mark Eugene ROBINSON, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-08
Citations: 82 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 03-1963
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mark Eugene ROBINSON, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mark Eugene ROBINSON, Appellant.
No. 03-1963.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2003.
Decided Dec. 8, 2003.
Sean R. Berry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Eugene Robinson, pro se, Leavenworth, KS, Anne M. Laverty, Willey & O’Brien, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before RILEY, MCMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Mark Robinson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court sentenced Robinson to 96 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw on appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has filed a brief challenging the district court's decision to sentence Robinson at the top of the Guidelines range. Robinson has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Specifically, Robinson's sentence is within an unchallenged Guidelines range based on unobjected-to information in the presentence report, and thus the sentence is not reviewable. See United States v. Smotherman, 326 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (holding appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review sentencing court's exercise of discretion in setting sentence within Guidelines range), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 293, 157 L.Ed.2d 203 (2003); United States v. Woodrwm, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (holding sentence is not reviewable merely because it is at top end of properly calculated Guidelines range). Further, we have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues.
Thus, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.