UNITED STATES v. BUTLER (2019)

[Unpublished]

Martez Butler pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, and the district court ¹ sentenced him to a term of imprisonment within the advisory guideline 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 sentence. Butler has filed a pro se brief.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Butler. Because Butler possessed a firearm in connection with another offense, the court properly applied the cross reference of USSG § 2K2.1(c) in calculating his guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 comment. (n.14(C) ); United States v. Howell, 606 F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir. 2010). The court also correctly calculated Butler’s criminal history. See USSG §§ 4A1.1, 4A1.2.

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. See generally United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and we presume that a sentence within the advisory range is reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.