UNITED STATES v. LINDUS (2018)

[Unpublished]

Casey Lindus directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense, and was sentenced by the district court ¹ to a prison term at the bottom of the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave 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 reasonableness of Lindus’s sentence.

Our review of the sentencing proceedings satisfies us that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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, the judgment is affirmed.

There having been no response by counsel to the certification requested by the court’s July 28, 2018, order, his motion for leave to withdraw is denied.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.