Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0717-01.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, Appellee, v. Ronald Jay RILEY, Appellant.
    No. 03-1481.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 23, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 30, 2003.
    
      Jimmy Y. Lynn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ronald Jay Riley, pro se, Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Ronald Jay Riley pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Riley’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

After careful review, we find the arguments raised in counsel’s Anders brief fail. The district court did not err by not departing from the Guidelines as Mr. Riley never moved for a departure; he agreed not to seek a departure, see United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995); disparity in codefendants’ sentences is not a proper basis for departure, see United States v. McKnight, 186 F.3d 867, 869 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam); he presented no evidence indicating his family ties and responsibilities were extraordinary, see United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 811, 814, 818 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 878, 115 S.Ct. 208, 130 L.Ed.2d 138 (1994); and there was no basis for granting a substantial-assistance departure as the government never made a motion and there was no evidence that Mr. Riley gave the government any assistance, see United States v. Wolf 270 F.3d 1188,1190 (8th Cir.2001). The district court did not have the authority to order incarceration at any particular facility as the Bureau of Prisons is solely responsible for that decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621. We also conclude that any ineffective-assistance claims should be presented (if at all) in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir.1999).

Finally, we have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,109 S.Ct. 346,102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the pending motion for a transfer. 
      
      . The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.