United States v. Diamond Cooper

688 F. App'x 410
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 2017
Docket16-3384
StatusUnpublished

This text of 688 F. App'x 410 (United States v. Diamond Cooper) 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. Diamond Cooper, 688 F. App'x 410 (8th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Diamond Cooper directly appeals, the sentence the district court 1 imposed’ after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agree *411 ment containing an appeal waiver, to drug, money laundering, and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave 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), questioning whether Cooper’s guilty plea was voluntary, whether the court imposed a reasonable sentence, and whether counsel was effective.

First, we decline to consider Cooper’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 4 49 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where the record can be properly developed). We further conclude that Cooper’s involuntary-plea claim is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move below to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (the claim that defendant’s plea was unknowing or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to withdraw his guilty plea).

As to Cooper’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir, 2010) (de novo review of the validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and .voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice).

In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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. Foy
617 F.3d 1029 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Scott
627 F.3d 702 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. John Robert Andis
333 F.3d 886 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
688 F. App'x 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-diamond-cooper-ca8-2017.