United States v. Reginald Ford


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4342583-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Anita L. Burns. [4384095] [15-3684]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3684 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Reginald L. Ford lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 29, 2016 Filed: April 1, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Reginald Ford directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 15-3684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Entry ID: 4384095 waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ford’s sentence is unreasonable and that Ford received ineffective assistance of counsel. Ford has filed a supplemental brief, arguing that the district court misapplied the career-offender provisions of the Guidelines, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). First, we decline to reach 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). Second, as to the remaining arguments, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-3684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2016 Entry ID: 4384095

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?