UNITED STATES v. HOLTON (2020)

[Unpublished]

Michael Holton received a 96-month sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, Holton's counsel suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and requests permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We conclude that Holton's sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (recognizing that we review sentences, even those “outside the Guidelines range,” under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” (quotation marks omitted)). The record establishes that the district court ¹ sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006).

We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.