Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0488-02.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. Raymond Terrance FRANKLIN, also known as John Edwin Bailey, Appellant.
    No. 00-2522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted July 5, 2001.
    Decided July 11, 2001.
    Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Raymond Terrance Franklin appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the District of Minnesota after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The district court sen-fenced him to 125 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Franklin’s counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Franklin has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing a prior robbery conviction should not have been counted as a predicate offense under the career-offender Guideline, his counsel was ineffective, and his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Upon a thorough review of the record, we conclude Franklin knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement. See United States v. Morrison, 171 F.3d 567, 568 (8th Cir.1999); United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 942, 119 S.Ct. 363, 142 L.Ed.2d 299 (1998). Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver, dismiss the appeal, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
     
      
      . Any ineffective assistance claim not waived should be deferred to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. To the extent Franklin's Apprendi argument is not foreclosed by the plea agreement, we reject it as meritless. See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.) (holding sentences within statutory range authorized by § 841(b)(1)(C) without reference to drug quantity are permissible under Apprendi even where drug quantity was not charged in indictment or found by jury beyond reasonable doubt), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).