United States v. Gregory Caldwell
This text of 223 F. App'x 542 (United States v. Gregory Caldwell) 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.
Opinion
[UNPUBLISHED]
Gregory Caldwell appeals from the district court’s 1 entry of an amended judgment following this court’s remand with instructions to vacate one of his four drug convictions. See United States v. Williams, 429 F.3d 767 (8th Cir.2005). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and moved to withdraw, and Caldwell has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We conclude that Caldwell’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. RamirezHernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006). The challenges to his convictions and sentence that he attempts to raise in this appeal after remand had to be raised in his first appeal and are beyond the scope of this court’s remand. See United States v. Walterman, 408 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir.2005).
After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel’s withdrawal motion, and deny as moot Caldwell’s motion for the appointment of new counsel on appeal.
. The Honorable George Howard, Jr., late a 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
223 F. App'x 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gregory-caldwell-ca8-2007.