DocketNumber： 16-3394
Judges： Smith, Bowman, Benton
Filed Date： 3/9/2017
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3394 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eric Johnson Beard lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: March 6, 2017 Filed: March 9, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Eric Beard, who pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense, appeals the sentence that the District Court1 imposed, which was based in part on an upward 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.3(a). On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California,386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that the District Court erred by departing upward and that Beard’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Beard has filed a pro se brief challenging his sentence and claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. To begin, we decline to consider Beard’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez,449 F.3d 824
, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims should be litigated in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed). As for Beard’s sentence, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under § 4A1.3(a) and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Vasquez,552 F.3d 734
, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that departures from the sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); Gall v. United States,552 U.S. 38
, 51 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,488 U.S. 75
, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-