United States of America v. Charlie Matthews

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[Unpublished]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.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
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 of 2 --