United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-3630 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Clayton Key Craddock lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: May 7, 2025 Filed: May 12, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Clayton Key Craddock appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the record shows the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not overlook a relevant factor or err in weighing the factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (this court considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under 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); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); see also United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines sentence is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-