United States v. Leroyce White , 481 F. App'x 275 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-3248
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                               * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Leroyce J. White,                      *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 4, 2012
    Filed: June 7, 2012
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Leroyce White appeals from the judgment entered by the District Court1 after
    he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(e). The court sentenced White to 180 months in prison, the
    statutory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), and a slight
    downward variance from the applicable Guidelines imprisonment range of 188 to 235
    months. In a subsequent 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion, White successfully claimed that
    his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal following his
    1
    The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    conviction and unsuccessfully claimed that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
    prepare for trial and thereby coercing his guilty plea. In this appeal, in a brief filed
    under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), counsel argues that White did not
    have the predicate ACCA convictions, that his sentence was unreasonable, and that
    the court erred in denying his second ineffective-assistance claim. In his pro se brief,
    White additionally raises a double-jeopardy claim and argues that his plea was not
    knowing and voluntary because no one explained the nature of the offense.
    Following careful review, we conclude that White was properly sentenced
    under the ACCA, based on his Missouri second-degree-assault conviction stemming
    from shots being fired in the direction of law enforcement officers and his two drug-
    sale convictions. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e); United States v. Vinton, 
    631 F.3d 476
    ,
    484–85 (8th Cir.) (explaining that under the modified categorical approach, the
    defendant’s conviction under Missouri’s second-degree-assault statute was a violent
    felony for ACCA purposes), cert. denied, 
    132 S. Ct. 213
     (2011); United States v.
    Mason, 
    440 F.3d 1056
    , 1057–58 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that multiple drug sales that
    occurred over three weeks and resulted in ten Missouri convictions were all predicate
    serious drug offenses for ACCA purposes). In addition, White’s sentence was not
    unreasonable. See United States v. Woods, 
    670 F.3d 883
    , 889 (8th Cir. 2012)
    (explaining how a district court may abuse its discretion such that it imposes an
    unreasonable sentence). We also agree with the District Court that the plea transcript
    does not support the claims that White’s plea was unknowing and involuntary or that
    plea counsel was unprepared for trial and thus ineffective. See Blackledge v. Allison,
    
    431 U.S. 63
    , 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong
    presumption of verity.”); Tinajero-Ortiz v. United States, 
    635 F.3d 1100
    , 1104 (8th
    Cir.) (noting that a defendant could not show prejudice from ineffective assistance of
    counsel when he had not shown that he would not have pleaded guilty but for
    counsel’s deficient performance), cert. denied, 
    132 S. Ct. 315
     (2011). We do not
    consider White’s double-jeopardy argument, raised for the first time in this appeal.
    -2-
    See United States v. Goodwin, 
    72 F.3d 88
    , 91 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Double jeopardy
    claims may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
    Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    448 U.S. 75
    , 80
    (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is
    affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
    ______________________________
    -3-