United States v. Frederick McKnight ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-4089
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                             * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota
    Frederick Leron McKnight,               *
    *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 1, 2000
    Filed: December 7, 2000
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Frederick Leron McKnight challenges the sentence imposed by the District
    1
    Court for the District of Minnesota following remand for resentencing in United States
    v. McKnight, 
    186 F.3d 867
    (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (McKnight I). At
    resentencing, the district court sentenced McKnight to 240 months imprisonment and
    10 years supervised release, based upon his prior guilty plea to a drug conspiracy
    charge. During the course of the resentencing hearing, the district court denied
    McKnight’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Counsel has moved to withdraw on
    1
    The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that the
    resentencing court erred in denying McKnight’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea
    without holding an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the
    judgment of the district court.
    As the district court noted at resentencing, it previously had denied McKnight’s
    requests to withdraw his guilty plea, and in McKnight I, we rejected McKnight’s
    contention that the district court abused its discretion in doing so. See McKnight 
    I, 186 F.3d at 869
    (finding that McKnight pleaded freely and voluntarily, and failed to present
    any fair and just reason for withdrawal of his plea). McKnight neither presented new
    evidence regarding his guilty plea, nor showed that our decision in McKnight I was
    manifestly unjust. Accordingly, this appeal is governed by the law-of-the-case
    doctrine, which prevents relitigation of a settled issue in a case and requires courts to
    adhere to decisions made in earlier proceedings. See United States v. Bartsh, 
    69 F.3d 864
    , 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (decision in prior appeal is followed in later proceedings
    unless party introduces substantially different evidence, or prior decision is clearly
    erroneous and works manifest injustice). In any event, we conclude, just as we did in
    McKnight I, that McKnight failed to present any fair and just reason for withdrawal of
    his plea. See United States v. Abdullah, 
    947 F.2d 306
    , 312 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
    denied, 
    504 U.S. 921
    (1992).
    After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the
    record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no nonfrivolous
    issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment
    of the district court.
    -2-
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4089

Filed Date: 12/7/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015