United States v. Todd Meyers

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Todd Meyers

354 F. App'x 285

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 30, 2009

Docket08-2463

StatusUnpublished

This text of 354 F. App'x 285 (United States v. Todd Meyers) 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. Todd Meyers, 354 F. App'x 285 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Todd Meyers appeals following sentencing by the district court 1 upon his guilty plea to drug-trafficking and gun offenses. His 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 within-Guidelines-range sentence was unreasonable. Meyers has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he argues counsel provided ineffective assistance, and the police search involved in his case was unlawful.

We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). Upon careful review of the record, we find that the district court did not *286 commit procedural error and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Significantly, the sentence imposed was within the undisputed Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), and Meyers has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. As to his pro se arguments, the ineffective-assistance claim is not properly before us in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.2003); and Meyers’s unconditional guilty plea forecloses his illegal-search argument, see United States v. Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.2000).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Meyers’s motion for new counsel.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

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

PER CURIAM.

Todd Meyers appeals following sentencing by the district court 1 upon his guilty plea to drug-trafficking and gun offenses. His 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 within-Guidelines-range sentence was unreasonable. Meyers has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he argues counsel provided ineffective assistance, and the police search involved in his case was unlawful.

We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). Upon careful review of the record, we find that the district court did not *286 commit procedural error and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Significantly, the sentence imposed was within the undisputed Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), and Meyers has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. As to his pro se arguments, the ineffective-assistance claim is not properly before us in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.2003); and Meyers’s unconditional guilty plea forecloses his illegal-search argument, see United States v. Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir.2000).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Meyers’s motion for new counsel.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F. App'x 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-todd-meyers-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack