United States v. Eric Holloway

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 10, 2021
• Docket: 21-1728
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1728 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eric Joseph Holloway

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: September 7, 2021 Filed: September 10, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Eric Holloway appeals the sentence the district court1 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 (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 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm. ______________________________

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).

-2-