United States v. Susan Streeter , 405 F. App'x 77 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-3002
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the Southern
    * District of Iowa.
    Susan Iwasa Streeter,                    *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 20, 2010
    Filed: December 23, 2010
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After a jury found Susan Streeter guilty of making a false claim against the
    United States in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 287
    , the district court1 sentenced her to one
    year of probation. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the evidence was insufficient
    to support the verdict. In a pro se supplemental brief, Streeter argues that her
    conviction was based on false testimony, and counsel was ineffective.
    1
    The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    We conclude that the evidence, which we must view in the light most favorable
    to the verdict, was sufficient for the jury to find Streeter guilty of the offense beyond
    a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Williams, 
    534 F.3d 980
    , 985 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (standard of review); United States v. Refert, 
    519 F.3d 752
    , 757 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (elements of offense). We further conclude that Streeter’s conclusory assertion that
    her conviction was based on false testimony does not warrant reversal, see United
    States v. Coronel-Quintana, 
    752 F.2d 1284
    , 1290 (8th Cir. 1985); and we decline to
    consider Streeter’s ineffective-assistance claim, because it is not properly raised in this
    direct criminal appeal, see United States v. Lewis, 
    483 F.3d 871
    , 873 n.2 (8th Cir.
    2007).
    Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
    the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to
    counsel informing Streeter about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition
    for certiorari.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-3002

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 77

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Benton

Filed Date: 12/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024