United States v. Levi Anders

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2022
• Docket: 20-2866
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2866 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Levi Anders

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________

Submitted: February 4, 2022 Filed: February 25, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Levi Anders of attempting to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. In an Anders brief, Anders’s current counsel suggests his last attorney was ineffective. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se brief claims that the Controlled Substances Act—the statute Anders violated—is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 616–17 (2000). We affirm.

Anders’s Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed by precedent. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 9 (2005) (holding that the Controlled Substances Act “is a valid exercise of federal power” under the Commerce Clause); see also United States v. Davis, 288 F.3d 359, 361–62 (8th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Controlled Substances Act is a valid exercise of Congressional power under the [C]ommerce [C]lause.”). And his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim will have to await collateral review. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court 1 and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-