UNITED STATES v. REED (2019)

[Unpublished]

Timothy Reed directly appeals the sentence the district court ¹ imposed after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a supplemental brief submitted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggests that the district court improperly applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) to calculate Reed’s advisory Guidelines range. We conclude that the district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts when it determined that Reed possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense, and that the court’s application of section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was therefore proper. See United States v. Brooks, 648 F.3d 626, 629 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (providing standard of review). 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 affirm the judgment of the district court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.