Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen Roshon DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Williams, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-07
Citations: 605 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: Nos. 15-1166, 15-1167
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen Roshon DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen Roshon DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 15-1166, 15-1167.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
July 7, 2015.
Submitted: July 1, 2015.
Filed: July 7, 2015.
Lisa C. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen Roshon Dorsey, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.
Kenneth Williams, Inez, KY, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These are consolidated direct criminal appeals from judgments entered by the district court. Stephen Dorsey and Kenneth Williams each pled guilty to distributing cocaine base within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 860(a), and each was sentenced by the district court at the bottom of his calculated Guidelines range. Their attorneys have moved for leave to withdraw, and have filed briefs under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the respective sentences. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence in either case. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir.2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing'decisions); see also United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir.2012) (on appeal, applying presumption of reasonableness to within-Gúidelines-range sentence). An independent review of both records reveals no nonfrivolous issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988)
The judgments in both cases are affirmed. Counsels' motions to withdraw are granted.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.