Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jimmy Wayne ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-11
Citations: 553 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 13-2353
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jimmy Wayne ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jimmy Wayne ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-2353.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 5, 2014.
Filed: Feb. 11, 2014.
Chris Givens, Cameron Charles McCree, Benecia Betton Moore, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Jimmy Wayne Adams, El Reno, OK, pro se.
Chelsea Wilson Cash, Justin Eisele, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jimmy Adams pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court sentenced him to 175 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable because the court did not properly consider Adams's arguments for leniency and should have given less weight to some sentencing factors and more weight to others.
After careful review of the sentencing record before us, we conclude that the court did not abuse its considerable discretion in weighing relevant sentencing factors, see United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1037 (8th Cir.2010) (discussing wide latitude given to district court judges in weighing sentencing factors), and gave due consideration to Adams's arguments, see United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir.2007) (court's awareness of defendant's arguments indicates that court did not abuse discretion by failing to consider them). Accordingly, we reject counsel's argument that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc).
Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm.
. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.