United States v. Deryl Abram ( 2016 )

  •                   United States Court of Appeals
                                 For the Eighth Circuit
                                     No. 16-1927
                                  United States of America,
                             lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                     Deryl Lamar Abram,
                           lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
                         Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                Submitted: December 7, 2016
                                 Filed: December 13, 2016
    Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
          After pleading guilty to drug charges, Deryl Abram appeals the district court’s1
    sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
            The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri.
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). He argues that Abram’s plea was not voluntary or
    knowingly entered, that the district court procedurally erred in calculating the
    applicable base offense level, and the sentence was unreasonable.
           We conclude the argument that Abram’s plea was not voluntarily and
    knowingly entered is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move in the
    district court to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 
    617 F.3d 1029
    1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    sentencing Abram. See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461-62 (8th Cir.
    2009) (en banc). The court committed no procedural error, as counsel’s objection to
    the factual predicate in the PSR was sustained, and the offense level was re-calculated
    accordingly, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(11). The sentence was not substantively
    unreasonable, as within-Guidelines-range sentences may be presumed reasonable, see
    United States v. Callaway, 
    762 F.3d 754
    , 760 (8th Cir. 2014), and the district court
    imposed the sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United
    States v. Miller, 
    557 F.3d 910
    , 917 (8th Cir. 2009). We have also independently
    reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and have found
    no non-frivolous issues.
          Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion is granted.