United States v. Charlie Matthews

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 25-1916
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1916 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Charlie Matthews

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________

Submitted: October 23, 2025 Filed: October 28, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Charlie Matthews appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug charge. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, then United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, now Chief Judge. Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Matthews filed a pro se brief questioning his career-offender status, the calculation of his offense based on actual methamphetamine, and the length of his sentence.

Upon careful review, this court does not decide whether the district court properly found Matthews to be a career offender, as his career-offender status did not affect the Guidelines calculations, and thus any error was harmless. See United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 939 (8th Cir. 2013) (error in Guidelines calculation harmless where offense level would have remained the same). In addition, Matthews waived any challenge to his offense calculation by failing to object to that calculation in the presentence report. See United States v. Eagle Pipe, 911 F.3d 1245, 1247 (8th Cir. 2019) (declining to address procedural argument when defendant failed to object to calculations).

Finally, the court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion review); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (when district court varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-