The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-3104•USA v. Deshunn Williams
01-3104United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th CircuitApr 30, 2002
1 The HONORABLE NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge
for the Western District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3394
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Western District of Missouri.
*
James A. Daniels, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 24, 2002
Filed: April 30, 2002
___________
Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
James Daniels pleaded guilty to disobeying court orders, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 401(3), and the district court 1 sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment and
3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and filed a brief raising the issue whether Daniels
received effective assistance of counsel. Daniels filed a pro se motion to strike the
Anders brief, as well as a supplemental brief arguing that the district court erred in
giving him a 3-level increase for interference with the administration of justice.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
We deny the motion to strike, and conclude that any ineffective-assistance
claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. See United States v. Jones,
121 F.3d 369, 370 (8th Cir. 1997). We further conclude that the district court did not
plainly err in giving Daniels a substantial-interference adjustment. See United States
v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1089 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Plumley, 207 F.3d
1086, 1092-93 (8th Cir. 2000). Moreover, following our independent review, see
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.