Case ID: f-appx_173/html/0532-02.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, Appellee, v. Ronald C. VAUGHN, Appellant.
    No. 05-1519.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted March 7, 2006.
    Filed March 10, 2006.
    
      James Joseph Kelleher, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, Appellee.
    Thomas D. Carver, Ronald C. Vaughn, Springfield, MO, for Appellant.
    Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Ronald Vaughn appeals the sentence the district court 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. 
      
      . The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.