Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Milton Lewis POOLE, III Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-08
Citations: 674 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 16-2227
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Milton Lewis POOLE, III Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Milton Lewis POOLE, III Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-2227
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: January 30, 2017
Filed: February 8, 2017
Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennifer D. Mammenga, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiff-AppelleeMilton Lewis Poole, III, Federal Correctional Institution, Adelanto, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, Milton Poole appeals the district court's below-Guidelines sentence. 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), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it imposed the below-Guidelines sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically mentioning Mr. Poole's history of violating probation, his musical aspirations, and the effect of his crimes on the community. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) ("[W]here 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."). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Karen Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.