Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02701/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02701-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noriel K. Snider
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2701

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Noriel K. Snider, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2006

Filed: June 12, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Noriel Snider appeals the 196-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

following his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court

plainly erred under United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005), and that the sentence amounted to cruel and unusual

punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Snider has filed a motion for new

Appellate Case: 05-2701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2006 Entry ID: 2055003
-2-

appointed counsel and a pro se supplemental brief raising multiple claims that counsel

was ineffective. 

As to counsel’s arguments, Pirani is inapposite because it deals only with plain

error when a defendant is sentenced under a mandatory scheme, see Pirani, 406 F.3d

at 550 (application of Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory is error that is plain if in

violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), at time of appellate

consideration), and the record reflects that the district court knew the Guidelines were

advisory. We find that Snider’s sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment, cf.

United States v. Gordon, 953 F.2d 1106, 1106, 1107 (8th Cir.) (rejecting defendant’s

argument that 262-month sentence for aiding and abetting manufacture of

phenylacetone following application of career-offender Guideline violated Eighth

Amendment), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 858 (1992); and nothing in the record rebuts the

presumption that his sentence is reasonable, see United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d

1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable; presumption can be rebutted if district court (1) failed to

consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gave

significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) considered only appropriate

factors but in weighing factors committed clear error of judgment).

Snider’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are more appropriate for

post-conviction proceedings. See United States v. Agboola, 417 F.3d 860, 864-65

(8th Cir. 2005) (generally, ineffective-assistance claims are better left for postconviction proceedings because facts from outside original record usually must be

developed to decide such claims; rejecting ineffective-assistance claim without

prejudice where defendant had not shown he raised claim in district court, record was

not fully developed as to claim, and justice did not require consideration of claim on

direct review). 

Appellate Case: 05-2701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2006 Entry ID: 2055003
-3-

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We also deny Snider’s motion for

new appointed counsel.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2701 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2006 Entry ID: 2055003