United States v. Lane

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Lane

23 F. App'x 596

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2001

DocketNo. 00-3359

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 F. App'x 596 (United States v. Lane) 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. Lane, 23 F. App'x 596 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie W. Lane pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the district court¹ sentenced him to 151 [597]*597months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Lane has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We will not entertain Lane’s pro se argument that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, because he withdrew below his motion to set aside his guilty plea. See United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1990) (claim that guilty plea was involuntary must first be presented to district court and is not cognizable on direct appeal). We also will not entertain counsel’s argument about the propriety of Lane’s career-offender status, because Lane knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to challenge his sentence on direct appeal. See United States v. Morrison, 171 F.3d 567, 568 (8th Cir.1999) (appeal waiver enforcement). Further, the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims Lane wishes to bring are not properly before us in this direct appeal. See United States v. Embrey, 250 F.3d 1181, 1183-84 (8th Cir.2001).

Having reviewed the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to withdraw.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie W. Lane pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the district court¹ sentenced him to 151 [597]*597months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Lane has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We will not entertain Lane’s pro se argument that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, because he withdrew below his motion to set aside his guilty plea. See United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1990) (claim that guilty plea was involuntary must first be presented to district court and is not cognizable on direct appeal). We also will not entertain counsel’s argument about the propriety of Lane’s career-offender status, because Lane knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to challenge his sentence on direct appeal. See United States v. Morrison, 171 F.3d 567, 568 (8th Cir.1999) (appeal waiver enforcement). Further, the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims Lane wishes to bring are not properly before us in this direct appeal. See United States v. Embrey, 250 F.3d 1181, 1183-84 (8th Cir.2001).

Having reviewed the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to withdraw.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. App'x 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lane-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack