Case ID: f-appx_684/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Lamar MIMS Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-2975
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2017
    Filed: May 1, 2017
    
      Tiffany Gulley Becker, Kenneth Tihen, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Oscar Lamar Mims, Pro Se
    Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

A jury found Oscar Lamar Mims guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court, sentenced Mims to 120 months in prison. Mims’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing the sufficiency of the evidence, the reasonableness of the sentence, and the effectiveness of counsel. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails in part because the. jury heard numerous recorded telephone conversations related to a network of individuals involved in the distribution of heroin, and some of the calls established Mims’s knowing participation in purchasing heroin for redistribution. See United States v. Ramirez, 362 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); United States v. Peeler, 779 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2015) (evidence of multiple sales of drugs sufficient to establish conspiracy where defendant was a party to one or more wiretapped conversations discussing aspects of heroin business, and indicating speaker’s knowledge and involvement in common drug-distribution scheme). Mims received the statutory minimum sentence, and there is no indication in the record that the sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-64 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Ineffective-assistance claims are usually best left for proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where the record can be developed as needed. See United States v. Davis, 583 F.3d 1081, 1091 (8th Cir. 2009). An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issue for review. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 
      
      . The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.