UNITED STATES of America v. Robert A. BOYER, Sr. Robert Arnold Boyer, Sr, Appellant, 184 F. App'x 172

OPINION POLLAK, District Judge: Defendant-appellant Robert Arnold Boyer appeals the sentence that was imposed on May 2, 2005, after he pled guilty to knowingly embezzling $358,636.30 from the employee profit-sharing plan of the construction/excavation business he operated. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. Defense counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Defense counsel’s brief asserts that he has carefully reviewed the record and found no non-frivolous issues for appeal in this case.

Accordingly, defense counsel requests permission to withdraw. Our review of the record confirms counsel’s assessment that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw will be granted. Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with this case, we need not set forth the full factual or procedural history of this appeal. Mr. Boyer entered a guilty plea on January 4, 2005, admitting guilt with respect to all six counts of an indictment charging him with knowingly embezzling money and assets belonging to the R.A.

Boyer, Inc. employee profit-sharing plan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 664. Mr. Boyer was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment in May 2005. The record indicates that Mr. Boyer’s guilty plea was properly accepted by the court, and that the sentence imposed was within the range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and in accord with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

The district court acknowledged the advisory nature of the Guidelines, and imposed its sentence “for reasons that were logical and consistent with the factors set forth in [ 18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 326-27 (2006) (citing United States v. Williams 425 F.3d 478, 481 (7th Cir.2005)). Defense counsel’s objection to a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice was properly denied. Since there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, the judgment of conviction filed May 2, 2005 will be affirmed, and counsel will be granted leave to withdraw. .

Defense counsel states that — by letters dated May 9, 2005 and June 20, 2004- — he advised Mr. Boyer that he saw no non-frivolous issues for appeal and intended to withdraw. Defense counsel also states that Mr. Boyer has not responded.