United States v. Stacy Brown , 358 F. App'x 760 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3228
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Western District of Arkansas.
    Stacey Ladon Brown,                     *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 23, 2009
    Filed: December 30, 2009
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Stacey Ladon Brown appeals the 155-month sentence the district court1
    imposed after he pled guilty to knowingly possessing with intent to distribute more
    than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine
    base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). Brown’s sentence
    was based in part on a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Brown’s counsel
    seeks permission to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). Brown has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that the district
    1
    The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Arkansas.
    court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under the Guidelines, and that his
    attorney was ineffective and coerced his guilty plea. He has also moved to
    supplement the record.
    We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Brown
    to 155 months in prison. See United States v. Berni, 
    439 F.3d 990
    , 993 (8th Cir.
    2006) (per curiam) (appellate court reviews sentences involving § 5K1.1 downward
    departure for reasonableness using abuse of discretion standard; sentence is reasonable
    where district court correctly calculated Guidelines range, permissibly applied §
    5K1.1 departure, and considered resulting adjusted range and § 3553(a) factors). We
    also conclude the court correctly determined that Brown was a career offender under
    the advisory Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (career-offender elements); United
    States v. Adams, 
    509 F.3d 929
    , 932-33 (8th Cir. 2007) (robberies that occurred at
    different locations, different times, and with different victims, although similar in
    modus operandi, were separate offenses for purposes of determining § 4B1.1 career
    offender status). Finally, we decline to review Brown’s claims that his counsel was
    ineffective and coerced his guilty plea. See United States v. McAdory, 
    501 F.3d 868
    ,
    872-73 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claims
    to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings); United States v. Cain, 
    134 F.3d 1345
    , 1352 (8th
    Cir. 1998) (claim that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered guilty plea
    involuntary is more properly raised in § 2255 proceedings).
    Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw, and affirm. We also grant Brown’s motion to supplement the
    record.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-3228

Citation Numbers: 358 F. App'x 760

Judges: Murphy, Colloton, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/30/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024