Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03821/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron E. Stanley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughery, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3821

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Aaron E. Stanley, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2005 

Filed: November 16, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Stanley appeals the 37-month prison sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Stanley’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a

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

“too severe.” In a pro se supplemental brief, Stanley argues that he has received

ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district court relied on an impermissible

Appellate Case: 04-3821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2005 Entry ID: 1975214
-2-

factor--his past criminal behavior--in determining his sentence, and that he should

have been granted downward departures under U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.11 and 4A1.3(b)(1).

These arguments fail. Construing the Anders brief argument as an Eighth

Amendment challenge, Stanley’s sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

See United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 840 (8th Cir.) (only in very narrow

circumstances has punishment within statutory limits been held to violate Eighth

Amendment; holding that life in prison without parole under “three-strikes” law does

not violate Eighth Amendment), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1028 (1996). The district

court’s denial of a downward departure under the Guidelines is unreviewable. See

United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 874 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court’s denial of

downward departure is essentially unreviewable unless court had unconstitutional

motive or erroneously believed it lacked authority to depart). Stanley’s ineffectiveassistance claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. See United States

v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Finally, there was nothing improper

about the court relying on Stanley’s prior criminal behavior when sentencing him.

See United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 1991) (defendant’s criminal

history category focuses on deeds and experiences of particular defendant, and is

generally intended to aid analysis of what sentence will best serve four general

purposes of sentencing identified in Guidelines--deterrence, incapacitation, just

punishment, and rehabilitation).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2005 Entry ID: 1975214