UNITED STATES v. SHACKELFORD (2020)

[Unpublished]

Rachael Shackelford appeals her sentence in a criminal case. She pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, and the district court ¹ sentenced her within the advisory sentencing guideline range. Her counsel has moved 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 the sentence.

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory range. There is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

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. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

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

PER CURIAM.