United States v. Carl Edwards

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 4, 2020
• Docket: 20-1237
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-1237 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Carl D. Edwards

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: November 24, 2020 Filed: December 4, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Carl Edwards received a 110-month sentence after the district court1 convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, Edwards’s counsel requests

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. permission to withdraw and raises the denial of a motion to suppress as an issue for our review. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Edwards has also filed a pro se brief and moved for leave to file a supplemental brief. We affirm.

We conclude that there was no reason to suppress any evidence because Edwards was brought before a magistrate “without unnecessary delay.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a)(1)(A). Nor is Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), of any help to him, because there was evidence that he knew at the time he committed the crime that he was a convicted felon. See United States v. Davies, 942 F.3d 871, 873 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying plain-error review); see also United States v. Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410, 415–16 (8th Cir 2019) (concluding under similar circumstances that the plain-error standard was not satisfied). Finally, we decline to consider the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim now. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).

We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment, grant the motion to file a supplemental brief, and grant permission to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-