Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Olin MILLEN Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 464
Docket Number: No. 16-4463
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Olin MILLEN Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Olin MILLEN Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-4463
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2017
Filed: July 17, 2017
David A. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Christopher Aaron Holt, John B. Schis-ler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayette-ville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant
Olin Millen, Pro Se
Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Olin Millen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Millen's 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), challenging the district court's determination of Mil-len's criminal history score and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
We need not reach the.merits of Millen's argument regarding his criminal history score because any error in assessing two points, instead of one point, for the conviction at issue was harmless. See U.S.S.G. § 5 Sentencing Table; United States v. Gutierrez, 437 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2006) (even if inclusion of two additional criminal history points was error, any such error was harmless because it 'did not affect defendant's criminal history category and did not alter Guidelines range). Further, after thorough review, we conclude that the district court's carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). Finally, 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 grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.
. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.