United States v. Ronald J. Riley

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Ronald J. Riley

84 F. App'x 717

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 30, 2003

Docket03-1481

StatusUnpublished

This text of 84 F. App'x 717 (United States v. Ronald J. Riley) 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 J. Riley, 84 F. App'x 717 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Jay Riley pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Riley’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

After careful review, we find the arguments raised in counsel’s Anders brief fail. The district court did not err by not departing from the Guidelines as Mr. Riley never moved for a departure; he agreed not to seek a departure, see United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995); disparity in codefendants’ sentences is not a proper basis for departure, see United States v. McKnight, 186 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam); he presented no evidence indicating his family ties and responsibilities were extraordinary, see United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 811, 814, 818 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 878, 115 S.Ct. 208, 130 L.Ed.2d 138 (1994); and there was no basis for granting a substantial-assistance departure as the government never made a motion and there was no evidence that Mr. Riley gave the government any assistance, see United States v. Wolf 270 F.3d 1188,1190 (8th Cir.2001). The district court did not have the authority to order incarceration at any particular facility as the Bureau of Prisons is solely responsible for that decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621. We also conclude that any ineffective-assistance claims should be presented (if at all) in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir.1999).

Finally, we have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,109 S.Ct. 346,102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the pending motion for a transfer.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, 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 Jay Riley pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Riley’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

After careful review, we find the arguments raised in counsel’s Anders brief fail. The district court did not err by not departing from the Guidelines as Mr. Riley never moved for a departure; he agreed not to seek a departure, see United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995); disparity in codefendants’ sentences is not a proper basis for departure, see United States v. McKnight, 186 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam); he presented no evidence indicating his family ties and responsibilities were extraordinary, see United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 811, 814, 818 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 878, 115 S.Ct. 208, 130 L.Ed.2d 138 (1994); and there was no basis for granting a substantial-assistance departure as the government never made a motion and there was no evidence that Mr. Riley gave the government any assistance, see United States v. Wolf 270 F.3d 1188,1190 (8th Cir.2001). The district court did not have the authority to order incarceration at any particular facility as the Bureau of Prisons is solely responsible for that decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621. We also conclude that any ineffective-assistance claims should be presented (if at all) in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir.1999).

Finally, we have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,109 S.Ct. 346,102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the pending motion for a transfer.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 F. App'x 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-j-riley-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack