Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-28
Citations: 684 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 16-3544
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-3544
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 13, 2017
Filed: April 28, 2017
Amy M. Driver, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Candace L. Taylor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jose Alfaro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant
Jorge Gonzalez, Pro Se
Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Jorge Gonzalez challenges the sentence the district court imposed following his guilty plea to a drug charge. Gonzalez's counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he raises the issue that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court imposed a sentence below the applicable advisory Guidelines range after discussing both mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances, and after considering sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing abuse of discretion); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (explaining, where district court sentenced defendant below the Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
We affirm, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.