Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carl S. REEDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-02
Citations: 608 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 15-1424
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carl S. REEDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 437–437

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carl S. REEDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-1424.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 2, 2015.
Filed: July 2, 2015.
Anita L. Burns, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Laine Cardarel-la, Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.
Christina Y. Tabor, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Carl Reeder directly appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, and the district court sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range. 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 district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court specifically referenced several of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 683 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) ("[Wjhere a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further."). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no nonfriv-olous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.