United States v. Carlton Samuels, Jr.

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Carlton Samuels, Jr.

672 F. App'x 620

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 2017

Docket16-2525

StatusUnpublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 620 (United States v. Carlton Samuels, Jr.) 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. Carlton Samuels, Jr., 672 F. App'x 620 (8th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, Carlton Samuels appeals the district court’s 1 within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence, and that Samuels received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to the 4-level enhancement for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. .Samuels has filed a motion making the same ineffective-assistance argument and a letter arguing that police did not have a proper search warrant when they discovered the firearm.

We conclude that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. A sentence within the advisory guideline range is presumed reasonable, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014), and the court imposed the sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). To the extent Samuels is attempting to assert a Fourth Amendment claim on appeal, his valid guilty plea waived such a claim. See United States v. Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000). The district court’s application of a four-level increase under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was supported by the evidence. We deny the ineffective-assistance claim, as such claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Samuels’s motion.

1

. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, Carlton Samuels appeals the district court’s 1 within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence, and that Samuels received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to the 4-level enhancement for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. .Samuels has filed a motion making the same ineffective-assistance argument and a letter arguing that police did not have a proper search warrant when they discovered the firearm.

We conclude that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. A sentence within the advisory guideline range is presumed reasonable, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014), and the court imposed the sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). To the extent Samuels is attempting to assert a Fourth Amendment claim on appeal, his valid guilty plea waived such a claim. See United States v. Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000). The district court’s application of a four-level increase under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was supported by the evidence. We deny the ineffective-assistance claim, as such claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Samuels’s motion.

1

. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 F. App'x 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carlton-samuels-jr-ca8-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack