UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON (2018)

[Unpublished]

In this direct criminal appeal, Tyrone Anderson challenges the sentence the district court ¹ imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, pursuant to a written plea agreement. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), discussing whether Anderson entered a voluntary guilty plea; and whether he should have been sentenced as a career offender.

We conclude that Anderson’s guilty plea was valid because he stated at the plea hearing that he understood the terms of the agreement, and that he entered into the guilty plea willingly, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); and that the career-offender provision was properly applied based on his convictions for two controlled substance offenses, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (defining career offender). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.