Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Corday D. THOMAS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-04
Citations: 434 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 11-1857
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Corday D. THOMAS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 434
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Corday D. THOMAS, Appellant.
No. 11-1857.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 22, 2011.
Filed: Oct. 4, 2011.
Laine Cardarella, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.
Corday D. Thomas, Butler, MO, pro se.
Paul S. Becker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Corday Thomas pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 72 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the court erred by not varying downward and by imposing a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In a pro se brief, Thomas argues that counsel was ineffective.
We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable: the record reflects that the district court carefully considered the section 3553(a) factors, explained why it chose not to vary downward, and imposed a sentence at the low end of the undisputed Guidelines range. See United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004, 1010 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). We decline to review Thomas's ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir.2005).
Having reviewed the record under Pen-son v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv- olous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.
. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.