United States v. Frederick Reeves , 496 F. App'x 679 ( 2012 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-1787
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Frederick Lee Reeves
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: December 11, 2012
Filed: December 18, 2012
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Frederick Reeves appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district
1
court imposed after he pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than
1
The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
500 grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine hydrochloride, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
district court committed procedural plain error and imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence.
Upon careful review, we find nothing in the record to suggest that the district
court committed any procedural error--much less plain error--in this case. See United
States v. Molnar, 590 F.3d 912, 914-915 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing for plain error
when defendant did not object below; party claiming plain error must prove there was
error that was plain and that affected his substantial rights). We further conclude that
Reeves’s sentence is not unreasonable. The district court thoroughly explained its
chosen sentence, relied on and properly weighed appropriate factors only, and
imposed a prison term within the calculated Guidelines range and the statutory limits.
See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(procedure for appellate court review of sentences).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel
informing Reeves about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for
certiorari.
______________________________
-2-