Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thomas TRICE, also known as Jay, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-29
Citations: 564 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 13-3006
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thomas TRICE, also known as Jay, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 564
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thomas TRICE, also known as Jay, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-3006.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 26, 2014.
Filed: April 29, 2014.
Patricia S. Harris, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little ROCK, AR, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Lott Rolfe, IV, Rolfe Law Firm, North Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
James Thomas Trice, Jay, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Trice directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge and the district court varied downward to impose a sentence below the calculated Guidelines range. 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 sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Trice. See United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir.2012) (where defendant does not raise procedural error, court bypasses review and only reviews substantive reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Lazarski 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was "nearly inconceivable" that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).
Having independently 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 affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Trice about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.
. The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.