
    UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Alejandro RODRIGUEZ-PADRON Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-3706
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 1, 2017
    Filed: June 6, 2017
    
      Martin Klein, Special Assistant U.S.' Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez-Padron, Pro Se
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

A jury found Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez-Padron guilty of two counts of distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 97 months in prison, followed by four years of supervised release. On appeal, Rodriguez-Padron’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of the sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The trial evidence showed that Rodriguez-Padron twice sold an ounce of methamphetamine to a confidential informant, and the transactions were captured on audio and video recordings. See United States v. Garcia, 646 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2011). After Rodriguez-Padron testified that the transactions were not what they appeared to be and that he was unfamiliar with methamphetamine, the district court properly allowed the government to introduce impeachment evidence — with a limiting instruction — in the form of Rodriguez-Padron’s proffer statements, and another witness’s testimony about Rodriguez-Padron’s prior methamphetamine transactions. See United States v. Clarke, 564 F.3d 949, 957-58 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding no error under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) by allowing impeachment evidence); United States v. Rowley, 975 F.2d 1357, 1362 (8th Cir. 1992) (upholding admission of defendant’s proffer statements for impeachment purposes). There is no support in the record for a finding that the sentence, which was at the bottom of the guidelines range, was unreasonable. See United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016).

Having conducted an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issue.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 
      
      . The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
     