United States v. Lyle White ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1697
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lyle White
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: August 20, 2024
Filed: November 4, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lyle White appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and was sentenced
by the district court.1 His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a
1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing whether White’s
plea was voluntary, whether the district court erred in determining his sentence, and
whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. White has also filed a pro se
brief in which he contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel and requests
appointment of new counsel on appeal.
Initially, we decline to consider the ineffective-assistance arguments in this
direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th
Cir. 2006) (stating that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best raised in
collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed). To the extent
that White challenges his guilty plea, we conclude his testimony at the plea hearing
establishes that his plea was knowing and voluntary. See Nguyen v. United States,
114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the defendant’s statements made
during the plea hearing carry a strong presumption of verity). The district court did
not err in imposing an enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon, or in
calculating the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Moore, 565 F.3d
435, 437 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that an unobjected-to procedural sentencing error is
reviewed under plain error standard); United States v. Guel, 184 F.3d 918, 923 (8th
Cir. 1999) (holding that brass knuckles are dangerous weapons); United States v.
Porter, 439 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating that unobjected-to facts in the
presentence report are deemed admitted). The district court also did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Further, we conclude that
there is no need for appointment of new counsel.
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-