United States v. Lloyd William


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, MORRIS S. ARNOLD and DUANE BENTON. [3801680-2] The motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Wallace L. Taylor is granted with conditions. (UNPUBLISHED) [3866378] [11-2085]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2085 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Lloyd Williams, also known as Teddy, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: December 7, 2011 Filed: January 6, 2012 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Lloyd Williams pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base and to distributing it within 1000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 860(a). He also entered a guilty plea, under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to conspiring to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. The district court1 imposed a sentence of 10 years in prison (the statutory minimum) and 8 years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 11-2085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2012 Entry ID: 3866378 738 (1967), questioning whether Mr. Williams’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. In a pro se brief, Mr. Williams argues that the prosecutor violated his rights by threatening to bring more serious charges against him if he did not plead guilty. Because Mr. Williams did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, he cannot challenge the voluntariness of his plea on direct appeal. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010). Further, the pro se argument is unavailing. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364-65 (1978) (prosecutor does not violate defendant’s constitutional rights by carrying out threat to impose more serious charges if defendant does not plead guilty). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Williams about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-2085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2012 Entry ID: 3866378

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?