Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Melvin Dwayne HENRE, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-16
Citations: 352 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 08-3761
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Melvin Dwayne HENRE, Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 352
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Melvin Dwayne HENRE, Appellant.
No. 08-3761.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 13, 2009.
Filed: Nov. 16, 2009.
Ian A. Lewis, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Michael S. Oliver, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Melvin Henre pled guilty to threatening a federal law enforcement officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). The district court sentenced him to 77 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, 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), questioning whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Henre.
We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion). We find no abuse of discretion. The sentence imposed was at the bottom of the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), and we find no indication that Henre would be able to rebut the resulting presumption of reasonableness, see United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2006).
After reviewing the record independently 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 and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.