United States v. Johnny Cornelious

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Johnny Cornelious

258 F. App'x 55

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2007

Docket06-3693

StatusUnpublished

This text of 258 F. App'x 55 (United States v. Johnny Cornelious) 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. Johnny Cornelious, 258 F. App'x 55 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Johnny L. Cornelious (Cornelious) pled guilty to distributing more than 5 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the district court 1 sentenced Cornelious to 87 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Cornelious’s counsel 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. Cornelious filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we reject all of the arguments raised on appeal, and we grant counsel’s withdrawal motion.

First, the sentencing transcript shows Cornelious was held responsible for only 5-20 grams of cocaine base, consistent with the amounts in the indictment and plea agreement. Second, Cornelious’s claim he was never provided with a copy of the presentence report is not supported by the record. Third, a direct criminal appeal is not a vehicle to remedy an alleged information leak by the government that has caused a defendant past hardship in prison. Fourth, matters to which defense counsel made and withdrew objections below—the application of an aggravating-role enhancement and the calculation of the criminal history score—are deemed intentionally relinquished or abandoned and need not be reviewed on appeal. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir.1999). Fifth, Cornelious’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

After Johnny L. Cornelious (Cornelious) pled guilty to distributing more than 5 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the district court 1 sentenced Cornelious to 87 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Cornelious’s counsel 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. Cornelious filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we reject all of the arguments raised on appeal, and we grant counsel’s withdrawal motion.

First, the sentencing transcript shows Cornelious was held responsible for only 5-20 grams of cocaine base, consistent with the amounts in the indictment and plea agreement. Second, Cornelious’s claim he was never provided with a copy of the presentence report is not supported by the record. Third, a direct criminal appeal is not a vehicle to remedy an alleged information leak by the government that has caused a defendant past hardship in prison. Fourth, matters to which defense counsel made and withdrew objections below—the application of an aggravating-role enhancement and the calculation of the criminal history score—are deemed intentionally relinquished or abandoned and need not be reviewed on appeal. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir.1999). Fifth, Cornelious’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 F. App'x 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-johnny-cornelious-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack