United States v. Renoir Bonnick ( 2013 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3076
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Renoir Bonnick
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: February 28, 2013
Filed: March 5, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Renoir Bonnick appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the district
1
court --upon determining that he was a career offender, but also granting him a
1
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
downward variance--sentenced him to 90 months in prison. Bonnick’s counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues: (1)
whether the district court abused its discretion in not granting Bonnick a greater
downward variance, and (2) whether Bonnick received ineffective assistance because
his counsel did not predict, prior to his guilty plea, that he would be sentenced as a
career offender. Counsel has also moved to withdraw.
We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance issue on direct appeal. See
United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate court
ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings). We
further conclude that the district court’s sentencing decision reflects no abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (discussing appellate
court review of sentencing decision under abuse-of-discretion standard); see also
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing
ways in which district court might be found to have committed abuse of discretion).
Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-