Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Metrick Lawan JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-24
Citations: 698 F. App'x 863
Docket Number: No. 17-1876
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Metrick Lawan JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 863–864

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Metrick Lawan JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1876
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: October 2, 2017
Filed: October 24, 2017
Mikaela Jo Shotwell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Metrick Lawan Jenkins, Pro Se
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Metrick Lawan Jenkins directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. Jenkins's counsel has moved for leave 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 district court erred in denying a down ward departure or variance based on overstatement of Jenkins's criminal history. Jenkins has filed a pro se brief that appears to raise the same arguments.
We lack authority to review the district court's denial of a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(l) because the district court recognized its authority to depart, and Jenkins does not contend that the court had any unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Heath, 624 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court generally will not review decision not to'grant downward departure, unless district court had unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought it was without authority to grant departure). To the extent Jenkins argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (under substantive reasonableness review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors).
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 for appeal. Accordingly, we. affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
, The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.