                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 19-1971
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                            Tondrell Darnez Gary, Jr.

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: December 9, 2019
                           Filed: December 12, 2019
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Tondrell Gary appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,

      1
       The Honorable C. J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence was unreasonable.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under
deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails
to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,
or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). The record
establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir.
2011) (court need not mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from
record that court actually considered them in determining sentence).

      We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________




                                          -2-
