United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 17-2147
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                  Christopher Peck

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                          Submitted: December 28, 2017
                             Filed: January 9, 2018
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       In this direct criminal appeal, Christopher Peck challenges the sentence the
district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to child pornography charges. His

      1
      The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), discussing the reasonableness of the sentence.

       We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked
a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors,
see United States v. David, 

, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review);
United States v. Wohlman, 

, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was
within the Guidelines range, see United States v. Callaway, 

, 760 (8th
Cir. 2014). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson
v. Ohio, 

(1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

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




                                         -2-