Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patrick Eugene ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-07
Citations: 566 F. App'x 545
Docket Number: No. 14-1222
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patrick Eugene ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 566
Pages: 545–545

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patrick Eugene ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-1222.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 5, 2014.
Filed: Aug. 7, 2014.
Edward O. Walker, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Patrick Eugene Allen, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
Justin Eisele, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Patrick Allen directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense. 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 Allen's below-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009) (substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was "nearly inconceivable" that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). In addition, 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.
As for counsel's motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit's 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel's motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.
. The Honorable James Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.