United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 17-3516
                        ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                               Juan Delacruz Albarran

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: August 29, 2018
                             Filed: September 4, 2018
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Juan Albarran directly appeals the consecutive Guidelines-range sentence the
district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and financial crime charges.


      1
      The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.
His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing
that the sentence is unreasonable.

       We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a
fully consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 

, 867 (8th Cir.
2006) (standard of review). The court explicitly stated that it was considering the
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (factors to be considered in imposing sentence), and
there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight
to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b) (imposition of concurrent or consecutive
prison terms; district court shall consider § 3553(a) factors in making determination);
United States v. Rutherford, 

, 820-22 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review;
affirming where court discussed § 3553(a) factors and imposed consecutive
sentences).

      We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-