United States v. Jorge Perez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 11, 2000
• Docket: 00-1449
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 00-1449 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Jorge Perez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: December 5, 2000

Filed: December 11, 2000 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Perez appeals following the district court’s1 imposition of sentence upon his guilty plea to a drug offense. His counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Perez has filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he raises the issue whether his counsel was ineffective for failing to bring to the court’s attention, as a basis for a downward departure,

1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Mr. Perez’s plea-agreement stipulation to deportation. If Mr. Perez wishes to pursue a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his dissatisfaction with counsel’s performance, however, he should do so in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Guzman-Landeros, 207 F.3d 1034, 1035 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Having reviewed the Anders brief and the record, we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-