United States v. Earl Price, Jr.

415 F. App'x 738
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 8, 2011
Docket10-3676
StatusUnpublished

This text of 415 F. App'x 738 (United States v. Earl Price, 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. Earl Price, Jr., 415 F. App'x 738 (8th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

*739 PER CURIAM.

Earl Price, Jr., pleaded guilty to assaulting a corrections officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b), and the district court 1 sentenced him to 105 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. His counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he argues that the sentence is unreasonable. In a supplemental pro se brief, Price argues that the sentence is too harsh because he is ill and takes medication. He also seeks appointment of new counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc), because we find no procedural error or anything to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to Price’s within Guidelines range sentence, see United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624, 626 (8th Cir.2010) (discussing substantive reasonableness); United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896, 901 (8th Cir.2009) (within Guidelines range sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal).

In his pro se submissions, Price may be suggesting that his guilty plea was involuntary because of his mental condition, but any such argument is not cognizable on direct appeal because Price did not move in the district court to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1512, 179 L.Ed.2d 335 (2011). Further, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Price about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certio-rari. We also deny Price’s pending motion for counsel.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, 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. Lozoya
623 F.3d 624 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Linderman
587 F.3d 896 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 F. App'x 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-earl-price-jr-ca8-2011.