Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Brian Terrence WRIGHT, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-17
Citations: 402 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 10-2158
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Brian Terrence WRIGHT, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 151–151

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Brian Terrence WRIGHT, Appellant.
No. 10-2158.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 1, 2010.
Filed: Nov. 17, 2010.
Matthew C. Quinn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
William Arden McLean, El Dorado, AR, for Appellant.
Brian Terrence Wright, Dermott, AR, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Brian Wright appeals the 110-month prison 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), stating that Wright believes his sentence is too harsh but that our court lacks jurisdiction to review Wright's within-the-guidelines sentence.
We have jurisdiction to review Wright's sentence, and we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion).
Having 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 issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.