Court Opinion

ID: 9381550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 15:01:12.826384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.298972
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3174
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                           v.

                                  Rodney Blocker,

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: March 20, 2023
                              Filed: March 23, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Rodney Blocker appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Blocker
pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

      1
      The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the guidelines
calculation and the reasonableness of the sentence.

       We conclude that there was no reversible error, as the district court explained
that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had sustained Blocker’s
objection to the base offense level and applied a lower advisory sentencing guidelines
range. See United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015); United
States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967, 970-71 (8th Cir. 2007). We also conclude that
Blocker’s sentence was not unreasonable. There is no indication that the court
overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard
of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm,
and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-