     United States Court of Appeals
                For the Eighth Circuit
            ___________________________

                    No. 18-3400
            ___________________________

                 United States of America

            lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                               v.

Jeffery Stanbrough, also known as Jeffrey Allen Stanbrough

           lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
              ___________________________

                    No. 18-3401
            ___________________________

                  United States of America

            lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                               v.

Jeffery Stanbrough, also known as Jeffrey Allen Stanbrough

           lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                           ____________

        Appeals from United States District Court
      for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
                      ____________

                 Submitted: May 31, 2019
                   Filed: June 5, 2019
                      [Unpublished]
                     ____________
Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated cases, Jeffery Stanbrough appeals the revocation sentence
the district court1 imposed after he was found to have violated the terms of his
supervised release, and the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a new drug
offense. His counsel has filed a brief that cites Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and challenges the reasonableness of each sentence. Counsel has also moved
for leave to withdraw.

       We conclude that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence
in each case. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. McGhee, 869
F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (substantive reasonableness of revocation
sentence is reviewed under same abuse-of-discretion standard that is applied to initial
sentencing decisions); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011)
(district court need not mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, so long as it
is clear from the record that court considered them in determining sentence).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgments are
affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to withdraw.
                       ______________________________




      1
       The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.

                                         -2-
