United States v. Columbus White


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); [4131886-2] Granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Bruce Eddy. [4136100] [13-2569]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2569 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Columbus Lynn White lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: March 18, 2014 Filed: March 21, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Columbus White appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense. His counsel seeks leave to withdraw 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 13-2569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Entry ID: 4136100 and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision). Further, having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 13-2569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Entry ID: 4136100

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?