Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael Ray SMITH, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-22
Citations: 373 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 09-3405
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael Ray SMITH, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael Ray SMITH, Appellant.
No. 09-3405.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 13, 2010.
Filed: April 22, 2010.
Robert L. Teig, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joanne M. Lilledahl, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Michael Ray Smith, Hiawatha, IA, pro se.
Before WOLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Ray Smith appeals the 24-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the court did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that the sentence was unreasonable.
We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence). We find no indication that the court overlooked or misapplied any relevant section 3553(a) factor, or gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.2009) (sentence was not unreasonable where the record reflected that the distinct court made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and specifically addressed the defendant's proffered information in its consideration of the sentencing factors), cert. denied, 559 U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1309, — L.Ed.2d - (2010).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.