United States v. Susan Streeter

405 F. App'x 77
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 23, 2010
Docket10-3002
StatusUnpublished

This text of 405 F. App'x 77 (United States v. Susan Streeter) 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. Susan Streeter, 405 F. App'x 77 (8th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a jury found Susan Streeter guilty of making a false claim against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287, the district court 1 sentenced her to one year of probation. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. In a pro se supplemental brief, Streeter argues that her conviction was based on false testimony, and counsel was ineffective.

We conclude that the evidence, which we must view in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for the jury to find Streeter guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Williams, 534 F.3d 980, 985 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review); United States v. Refert, 519 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir.2008) (elements of offense). We further conclude that Streeter’s conclusory assertion that her conviction was based on false testimony does not warrant reversal, see United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1290 (8th Cir.1985); and we decline to consider Streeter’s ineffective-assistance claim, because it is not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v. Lewis, 483 F.3d 871, 873 n. 2 (8th Cir.2007).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Streeter about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. James Edward Lewis
483 F.3d 871 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Refert
519 F.3d 752 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Williams
534 F.3d 980 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
405 F. App'x 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-susan-streeter-ca8-2010.