United States v. Walter Villa


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4327040-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Chad Douglas Primmer. [4379622] [15-2370]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2370 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Walter Raul Villa lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: March 16, 2016 Filed: March 21, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After the district court1 accepted Walter Villa’s guilty plea to a federal drugconspiracy charge, the presentence report (PSR) recommended a career-offender 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 15-2370 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Entry ID: 4379622 Guidelines range of 262-327 months in prison. Villa objected to the career-offender designation, but, before sentencing, the parties reached an agreement under which Villa stipulated that he was a career offender. At sentencing, the court denied Villa’s motion for a downward variance and sentenced him to 262 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Villa appeals, and his counsel moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that the sentence is unreasonable. In a pro se supplemental filing, Villa argues that counsel was ineffective and that Villa should not have been sentenced as a career offender. Having carefully reviewed the sentencing transcript, we find nothing to suggest that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Villa, and we conclude that his bottom-of-the-range sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing appellate presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentences). As to Villa’s pro se arguments, he may not challenge his career-offender designation because he stipulated before sentencing that he was a career offender, see United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942, 946 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995), and we will defer any ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings where the record can be sufficiently developed, see United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-2370 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Entry ID: 4379622

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?