United States v. Carl Edwards ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-1237
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Carl D. Edwards
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: November 24, 2020
    Filed: December 4, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Carl Edwards received a 110-month sentence after the district court1
    convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C.
    §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, Edwards’s counsel requests
    1
    The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    permission to withdraw and raises the denial of a motion to suppress as an issue for
    our review. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). Edwards has also filed
    a pro se brief and moved for leave to file a supplemental brief. We affirm.
    We conclude that there was no reason to suppress any evidence because
    Edwards was brought before a magistrate “without unnecessary delay.” Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 5(a)(1)(A). Nor is Rehaif v. United States, 
    139 S. Ct. 2191
    (2019), of any
    help to him, because there was evidence that he knew at the time he committed the
    crime that he was a convicted felon. See United States v. Davies, 
    942 F.3d 871
    ,
    873 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying plain-error review); see also United States v.
    Hollingshed, 
    940 F.3d 410
    , 415–16 (8th Cir 2019) (concluding under similar
    circumstances that the plain-error standard was not satisfied). Finally, we decline
    to consider the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim now. See United States v.
    Ramirez-Hernandez, 
    449 F.3d 824
    , 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this
    type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).
    We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other
    non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988). We
    accordingly affirm the judgment, grant the motion to file a supplemental brief, and
    grant permission to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1237

Filed Date: 12/4/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/4/2020