United States v. Daniel Galvin


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, KERMIT E. BYE and STEVEN M. COLLOTON (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3771078-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Andrew J. Scavotto. [3827520] [10-3736]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3736 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Daniel P. Galvin, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: August 11, 2011 Filed: September 12, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Daniel Galvin appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to aiding and abetting a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1), and 924(a)(2). On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 1 The HONORABLE FERNANDO J. GAITAN, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 10-3736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2011 Entry ID: 3827520 We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claims in this direct appeal. Ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, barring exceptional circumstances, see United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005); and this case, with its undeveloped record regarding the ineffective-assistance claims, does not present any such circumstances. Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 10-3736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2011 Entry ID: 3827520

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?