Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Treston Dishongh HARRIS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-31
Citations: 414 F. App'x 899
Docket Number: No. 10-3506
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Treston Dishongh HARRIS, Appellant.
Judges: Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 899–900

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Treston Dishongh HARRIS, Appellant.
No. 10-3506.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 21, 2011.
Filed: March 31, 2011.
Patricia S. Harris, Karen Whatley, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.
Omar Greene, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.
Treston Dishongh Harris, Grady, AR, pro se.
Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Treston Dishongh Harris appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 5 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and § 846 (2009). 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).
We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Harris, and that the court 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); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.