Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford PILCHER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-29
Citations: 587 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 14-1826
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford PILCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 587
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford PILCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-1826.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 19, 2014.
Filed: Dec. 29, 2014.
Brandon T. Carter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Clifford Pilcher, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Clifford Pilcher directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related offense and the district court sentenced him within his calculated advisory Guidelines range to 80 months in prison. 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), challenging the reasonableness of Pilcher's sentence. Pilcher, pro se, has filed a document citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), and requesting that his sentence be vacated and his case remanded to the district court so that he can be resen-tenced in accordance with a recently adopted Guidelines amendment which lowers the base offense levels for certain drug-related offenses.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pilcher. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences). We also decline to grant Pilcher's pro se request. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting motion for modification of prison term based on lowered sentencing range). Finally, having independently reviewed the record 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, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.