Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Allen BROWN, Jr., also known as AWAC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-27
Citations: 527 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 12-3552
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Allen BROWN, Jr., also known as AWAC, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 527
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Allen BROWN, Jr., also known as AWAC, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-3552.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2013.
Filed: Aug. 27, 2013.
Thomas S. Rea, Cristian Matthew Stevens, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Allen Brown, Jr., U.S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Larry Darnell Hale, Hale Law Firm, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Allen Brown, Jr. directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), requesting a review of Brown's sentence for reasonableness. Upon careful review, this court has found nothing in the record to suggest that any significant procedural error occurred at sentencing or that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (when reviewing sentences, appellate court applies deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, ensuring that district court did not commit significant procedural error or impose substantively unreasonable sentence; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).
This court has reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.