UNITED STATES v. THIPBOONNGAM (2020)

[Unpublished]

Peerachet Thipboonngam appeals after he pled guilty to sex-trafficking and money-laundering offenses, and the district court ¹ imposed a sentence below the advisory range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. 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), suggesting the district court erred in calculating the base offense level and Thipboonngam's sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We conclude Thipboonngam waived his challenge to the base offense level. See United States v. Evenson, 864 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 2017) (“By raising and then withdrawing an objection ․ [a defendant] demonstrate[s] the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of his right to argue the point.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also conclude 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) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). In addition, having 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. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.