United States v. Joel W. Clark ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2687
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * District of Nebraska.
    *
    Joel W. Clark,                           * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 19, 2001
    Filed: December 27, 2001
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Joel W. Clark pleaded guilty to possessing three or more matters containing
    visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2252
    (a)(4)(B), and to criminal forfeiture under 
    18 U.S.C. § 2253
    . The
    district court1 sentenced him to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised
    release, and that sentence is the subject of this appeal. Counsel has filed a brief and
    moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). Clark has
    filed a supplemental pro se brief.
    1
    The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    We reject the arguments Clark and his counsel have raised. First, the district
    court’s denial of Clark’s downward-departure motion is unreviewable because the
    court’s decision not to depart was an exercise of discretion. See United States v.
    Turechek, 
    138 F.3d 1226
    , 1228 (8th Cir. 1998). Second, Clark’s claim of ineffective
    assistance of counsel is not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal. See United
    States v. Martin, 
    59 F.3d 767
    , 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (claim of ineffective assistance of
    counsel should normally be raised in proceeding under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , rather than
    direct criminal appeal).
    Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant
    counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2687

Filed Date: 12/27/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015