United States v. William Mefford

10-2131Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30.03.2012

Gesamter Gesetzestext

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1993
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Southern District of Iowa.
*
Terrance J. Hood, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]
Terrance J. Soto, *
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: January 25, 2012
Filed: March 22, 2012
___________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Terrance Hood pleaded guilty to a drug-
conspiracy offense, and the district court sentenced him to 188 months in prison and1
5 years of supervised release. Hood appeals, and his counsel has moved to withdraw,
submitting a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he
argues that the sentence is unreasonable. Hood has filed a pro se supplemental brief
The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern1
District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

asserting that the court miscalculated his criminal history score and that his attorney
failed to object to the score.
Because Hood’s sentence falls within the applicable Guidelines range, a
presumption arises that his sentence is not substantively unreasonable. He has not
rebutted that presumption, and accordingly, we conclude that the sentence is not
unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Valadez, 573 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Further, we will not address
the supplemental-brief arguments about Hood’s criminal history score, because he
stipulated in the plea agreement that he would be sentenced as a career offender with
a Category VI criminal history, see United States v. Early, 77 F.3d 242, 244 (8th Cir.
1996) (per curiam); and any ineffective-assistance claim he may have intended to
raise is not properly before us in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v.
Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.