United States v. Corday Thoma

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: STEVEN M. COLLOTON, JAMES B. LOKEN and KERMIT E. BYE Granting [3835574-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Laine Cardarella., (UNPUBLISHED) [3835582] [11-1857]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-1857
___________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Corday D. Thomas,
Appellant.

*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
*
___________
Submitted: September 22, 2011
Filed: October 4, 2011
___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Corday Thomas pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 72 months in
prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred by not varying
downward and by imposing a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the
sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In a pro se brief, Thomas argues that counsel
was ineffective.
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 11-1857

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/04/2011 Entry ID: 3835582

We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable: the record reflects that
the district court carefully considered the section 3553(a) factors, explained why it
chose not to vary downward, and imposed a sentence at the low end of the undisputed
Guidelines range. See United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004, 1010 (8th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). We
decline to review Thomas’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See
United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005).
Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we
find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and
we affirm the judgment.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 11-1857

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/04/2011 Entry ID: 3835582