United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-1526 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Joshua Don Lineberry,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________

Submitted: June 21, 2022 Filed: July 6, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Lineberry appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to an odometer tampering offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw

1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Lineberry has filed a motion for new counsel on appeal.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Lineberry’s sentence was not unreasonable. There is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). As to Lineberry’s pro se arguments that counsel was ineffective, we conclude that they would be better addressed on collateral review. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

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, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Lineberry’s motion for new counsel as moot. ______________________________

-2-