United States v. Joshua Blaine
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Diana E. Murphy (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4390784-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. James Arthur Eirinberg. [4437356] [15-3636]
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3636
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joshua Jay Blaine
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
____________
Submitted: August 9, 2016
Filed: August 15, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joshua Blaine directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of firearms, and the district court1 sentenced him to a
1
The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
Appellate Case: 15-3636
Page: 1
Date Filed: 08/15/2016 Entry ID: 4437356
within-Guidelines-range term of imprisonment. His counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting an ineffective-assistance claim and arguing that the district court committed
procedural sentencing errors and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Mr. Blaine has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he asserts arguments
apparently related to a civil action he has filed.
To begin, we decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct
appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir.
2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral
proceedings, where record can be properly developed). As to counsel’s assertions of
procedural sentencing errors, we find no plain error. See United States v. Krzyzaniak,
702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for plain error when defendant did
not object at sentencing to adequacy of explanation of sentence); see also United
States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016) (approving consideration of
defendant’s failure to accept responsibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)); United States
v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (in determining whether district
court has considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, this court reviews entire sentencing
record, not merely district court’s statements at hearing). We also conclude that the
court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Callaway,
762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may
be presumed reasonable). We further note that Mr. Blaine’s pro se arguments
apparently related to a civil action are not cognizable in this direct criminal appeal.
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-
Appellate Case: 15-3636
Page: 2
Date Filed: 08/15/2016 Entry ID: 4437356
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?