United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2262 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Melissa R. Kivett

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________

Submitted: January 27, 2021 Filed: February 16, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before KELLY, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Melissa Kivett appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled guilty to drug offenses. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has a filed

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s drug quantity determination, and the imposition of a firearm sentencing enhancement and role-in-the-offense sentencing enhancement. Counsel also challenges the substantive reasonableness of Kivett’s sentence.

After careful review, we discern no clear error in the district court’s drug quantity determination. See United States v. Ault, 446 F.3d 821, 823 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing relevant conduct for purposes of drug quantity determination); United States v. Titlbach, 300 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). Similarly, the district court did not clearly err in assessing the firearm enhancement, see Ault, 446 F.3d at 824 (discussing dangerous-weapon enhancement), or err in imposing the role enhancement, see United States v. Camacho, 555 F.3d 695, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing application of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1).

Finally, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). Further, the district court imposed a sentence within the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) range. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-