United States v. Ronald C. Vaughn

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Ronald C. Vaughn

173 F. App'x 532

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2006

Docket05-1519

StatusUnpublished

This text of 173 F. App'x 532 (United States v. Ronald C. Vaughn) 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. Ronald C. Vaughn, 173 F. App'x 532 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Vaughn appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting that Vaughn received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. In a pro se supplemental brief, Vaughn argues that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim in this appeal. See United States v. Halter, 411 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Because the district court in sentencing Vaughn did not view the Guidelines as mandatory, there was no error under Blakely. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (Sixth Amendment problem resulting from mandatory nature of Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory). To the extent Vaughn challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, see id. at 261, 125 S.Ct. 738 (appellate court reviews sentence for unreasonableness), we reject this challenge. The record does not indicate that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, or considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 276, 163 L.Ed.2d 246 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Vaughn appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting that Vaughn received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. In a pro se supplemental brief, Vaughn argues that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim in this appeal. See United States v. Halter, 411 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Because the district court in sentencing Vaughn did not view the Guidelines as mandatory, there was no error under Blakely. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (Sixth Amendment problem resulting from mandatory nature of Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory). To the extent Vaughn challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, see id. at 261, 125 S.Ct. 738 (appellate court reviews sentence for unreasonableness), we reject this challenge. The record does not indicate that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, or considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 276, 163 L.Ed.2d 246 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F. App'x 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-c-vaughn-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack