United States v. Joshua Rankin


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Pasco M. Bowman and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); [4009205-2] Granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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]

Download PDF
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Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: July 18, 2013 Filed: July 22, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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

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?