United States v. Joshua Rankin

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Pasco M. Bowman and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); [4009205-2] Granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Donovan S. Robertson and Appellant Mr. Joshua William Rankin.; [4016536-2] Denying motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Joshua William Rankin. [4057159] [12-3873]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3873
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joshua William Rankin
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: July 18, 2013
Filed: July 22, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joshua Rankin appeals the 180-month sentence imposed by the District Court1
after he pleaded guilty to drug-conspiracy and firearm charges. In a brief filed under

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 12-3873

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/22/2013 Entry ID: 4057159

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the District Court erred
in declining to vary downward because of the sentencing disparity for offenses
involving crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. Counsel also seeks to withdraw. In
a pro se motion for new counsel, Rankin questions counsel’s quality of representation.
The Anders brief argument fails. Based on sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), the court varied downward to the mandatory minimum sentence for each
offense, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and having done so,
the court lacked authority to vary downward further still, see Kimbrough v. United
States, 552 U.S. 85, 102–03 (2007) (noting that discretion to consider sentencing
disparity for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine is bracketed by statutory minimum
and maximum). To the extent Rankin wishes to raise claims relating to the
effectiveness of his counsel, he must do so in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872–73 (8th Cir. 2007).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Rankin’s motion for appointment
of new counsel.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 12-3873

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/22/2013 Entry ID: 4057159