United States v. Aimee Rosenbaum

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 12, 2023
Docket22-2014
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Aimee Rosenbaum (United States v. Aimee Rosenbaum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Aimee Rosenbaum, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-2014 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aimee L. Rosenbaum

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: December 30, 2022 Filed: January 12, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Aimee Rosenbaum appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to conversion and bankruptcy fraud pursuant to a plea agreement

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. containing an appeal waiver. Her appellate counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that prior counsel provided ineffective assistance during Rosenbaum’s post-plea proceedings.

While the appeal waiver does not prohibit ineffective-assistance claims, we decline to consider such claims on direct appeal without an adequately developed record. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Rene Ramirez-Hernandez
449 F.3d 824 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Aimee Rosenbaum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-aimee-rosenbaum-ca8-2023.