Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03488/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Jon Lucas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3488

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Robert Jon Lucas, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 21, 2007

Filed: December 28, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Jon Lucas pleaded guilty to manufacturing a methamphetamine mixture,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court1

 sentenced him

below the applicable advisory Guidelines range to 180 months in prison and 6 years

of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In pro se filings, Lucas maintains

that, under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), his Fifth and Sixth

Appellate Case: 06-3488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386569
-2-

Amendment rights have been violated, and he appears to assert a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm.

To begin, we decline to consider any ineffective assistance claim that Lucas

may be raising. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003)

(claims of ineffective assistance ordinarily should be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

because they normally involve facts outside original record). As to Lucas’s assertions

of Booker error, we conclude that the district court properly recognized the advisory

nature of the Guidelines, as evidenced by the downward variance Lucas received. See

Booker, 543 U.S. at 233-37, 245, 258-59 (Sixth Amendment problem resulting from

mandatory nature of Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory). We

further conclude that the 180-month sentence is not unreasonable--and the district

court did not abuse its discretion--because the court considered appropriate factors

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as the Guidelines imprisonment range, the nature and

circumstances of Lucas’s background, his relevant conduct, and his drug addiction;

the court did not consider an improper or irrelevant factor, fail to consider a relevant

factor, or make a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors; and the

court clearly and reasonably determined that the circumstances justified only a “slight

variance” from the applicable Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (4)(A);

Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949, 2007 WL 4292116 at * 7 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2007)

(abuse-of-discretion review standard applies to appellate review of all sentencing

decisions whether inside or outside Guidelines range); Rita v. United States, 127 S.

Ct. 2456, 2468-69 (2007) (inferring district court’s reasoning from context and

examination of whole record); Booker 543 U.S. at 264 (courts of appeals review

sentencing decisions for unreasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997,

1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating ways in which abuse of discretion may occur).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, we

deny Lucas’s pending motions, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on the

Appellate Case: 06-3488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386569
-3-

condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for

rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3488 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386569