United States v. Charles D. Johnson

88 F. App'x 972
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 27, 2004
Docket03-2665
StatusUnpublished

This text of 88 F. App'x 972 (United States v. Charles D. Johnson) 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. Charles D. Johnson, 88 F. App'x 972 (8th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles Johnson appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. Following our review of counsel’s brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), as well as Johnson’s pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that Johnson cannot challenge an offense-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon after stipulating to such an enhancement in the plea agreement, see United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995), and that his ineffective-assistance arguments would be more properly raised in a collateral proceeding, see United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998). In addition, we have reviewed the record independently for nonfrivolous issues under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find none.

Accordingly, we affirm. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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. Michael Quoc Anh Nguyen
46 F.3d 781 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 F. App'x 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-d-johnson-ca8-2004.