United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1511 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Vincent Gepson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: July 15, 2024 Filed: July 18, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Vincent Gepson appeals after he pled guilty to bank robbery and the district court imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has moved to The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, 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 substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting a within- Guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable).

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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________

-2-