[Unpublished]

Jason Stallcup directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and to using, carrying, possessing, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Stallcup’s sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions; where sentence falls within Guidelines range, appeals court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).

As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

Judge Colloton would grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Eredia, No. 13-3538, 578 Fed.Appx. 620, 621, 2014 WL 4920905, at *1 (8th Cir. Oct. 2, 2014) (unpublished) (Colloton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).