Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 26-1889 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Burrell Marquis Jackson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: November 3, 2026 Filed: November 6, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before L.R. SMITH, BENTON, and TRAYNOR, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Burrell Jackson appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624, 625 (8th Cir. 2010) (sentencing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion). The record reflects that the district court adequately considered the relevant sentencing factors and did not give significant weight to an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment in imposing a within-Guidelines term. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors); see also United States v. Williams, 171 F.4th 1086, 1092-93 (8th Cir. 2026) (within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable; defendant’s mere disagreement with district court’s weighing of relevant factors is insufficient to warrant reversal). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________ -2-