United States v. Timothy Colhour

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4353742-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Jose Alfaro and Ms. Anna Marie Williams. [4390204] [15-3892]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3892
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Timothy Colhour
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2016
Filed: April 20, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Colhour directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1
after he pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine and using a firearm during
1

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

Appellate Case: 15-3892

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/20/2016 Entry ID: 4390204

and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
district court abused its discretion by denying a downward variance based on the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying a variance, as nothing in the record indicated the within-Guidelines sentence
was substantively unreasonable, and the court adequately explained its reasons for
denying it. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013)
(under substantive review, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider
relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits
clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667,
670 (8th Cir. 2012) (treating within-Guidelines sentence as presumptively reasonable
on appeal); United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 608 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding
denial of downward variance where court considered sentencing factors and properly
explained rationale). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3892

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/20/2016 Entry ID: 4390204