Court Opinion

ID: 9886343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 16:00:34.871968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:24.596402
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1448
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                 Timothy Paul Bush

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: October 3, 2023
                              Filed: October 6, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Timothy Bush appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and

      1
      The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Bush’s
classification as a career offender under the Guidelines and the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Bush has filed a pro se supplement, also contesting
his classification as a career offender.

      After careful de novo review, we conclude that Bush’s challenge to the career-
offender classification is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v.
Castellanos Muratella, 956 F.3d 541, 543 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). This
court has held that there is no requirement under the Guidelines that the particular
substance underlying the state offense is also controlled under a distinct federal law.
See United States v. Henderson, 11 F.4th 713, 717-19 (8th Cir. 2021). We further
conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as the court did not
commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate sentencing factors, see
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); and the
sentence is below the Guidelines range, see United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d
1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016).

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

                                         -2-