United States of America v. James Thomas Trice, also known as Jay

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3006
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
James Thomas Trice, also known as Jay,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: March 26, 2014
Filed: April 29, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Trice directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge
and the district court varied downward to impose a sentence below the calculated1
The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern1
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

Guidelines range. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Trice. See United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, 990 (8th
Cir. 2012) (where defendant does not raise procedural error, court bypasses review
and only reviews substantive reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); see
also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court
varied downward from Guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court
abused its discretion in not varying downward further).
Having independently reviewed the record 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 Trice about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for
certiorari.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --