Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tina L. KUEHL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-20
Citations: 593 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 14-2945
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tina L. KUEHL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tina L. KUEHL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-2945.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 13, 2015.
Filed: Feb. 20, 2015.
Dorothy L. McMurtry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Tina L. Kuehl, Lexington, KY, pro se.
Dennis R. Chassaniol, II, Dalton & Chassaniol, Saint Charles, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tina Kuehl appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after she pled guilty to bank fraud and other offenses. Her 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 district court abused its discretion by failing to give adequate consideration to Kuehl's medical issues as a basis for a downward variance. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Kuehl. See United States v. Wanna, 744 F.3d 584, 589 (8th Cir.) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to vary downward based on defendant's "myriad health problems" and sentencing her to bottom of her advisory Guidelines range), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 125, 190 L.Ed.2d 95 (2014); cf. United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085-86 (8th Cir.2013) (with respect to adequacy of district court's explanation for sentence, finding no error, much less plain error, where court acknowledged defendant's poor health, but explained that lower sentence was not warranted). .In addition, having independently reviewed the record consistent with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous is sues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
As for counsel's motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit's 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel's motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.
. The Honorable Heniy E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.