United States of America v. Tyrone Anderson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3304
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tyrone Anderson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: June 29, 2018
Filed: July 5, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Tyrone Anderson challenges the sentence the
district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, pursuant to a written1
The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the1
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

plea agreement. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing whether Anderson entered a
voluntary guilty plea; and whether he should have been sentenced as a career
offender.
We conclude that Anderson’s guilty plea was valid because he stated at the plea
hearing that he understood the terms of the agreement, and that he entered into the
guilty plea willingly, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997);
and that the career-offender provision was properly applied based on his convictions
for two controlled substance offenses, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (defining career
offender). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal .
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --