UNITED STATES v. HOLLOWAY (2021)

[Unpublished]

Eric Holloway appeals the sentence the district court ¹ imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His 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).²

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Holloway, as there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); and the sentence was within the Guidelines range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, 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 and affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

2.   In reviewing the briefing here, we believe the brief comes dangerously close to failing to comply with the mandate of Anders. We remind counsel that the obligation associated with filing an Anders brief is to advocate for the appellant, and counsel should make specific reference to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268 (8th Cir. 1989).

PER CURIAM.