Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01713/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01713-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jermaine A. Cole
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1713

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jermaine A. Cole, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 28, 2010

Filed: August 2, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jermaine Cole appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

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

argues that (1) his plea was induced by false promises as to his sentence; (2) his

counsel was ineffective; (3) the district court wrongly imposed a 4-level enhancement

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) for possessing the firearm in connection with

Appellate Case: 10-1713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Entry ID: 3689082
-2-

“another felony offense”--the state offenses of resisting a felony arrest and unlawful

use of a weapon--because the state dismissed the charges; (4) the court improperly

calculated his criminal history category; (5) the presentence report (PSR) incorrectly

reported the date that he committed the burglary underlying his prior state burglary

conviction; (6) his sentence is unreasonable; and (7) the court should have imposed

his federal sentence to run concurrently with the state sentence that he received upon

revocation of probation for his prior burglary conviction. For the following reasons,

we affirm.

First, we review Cole’s challenges to the application of the advisory Guidelines

only for plain error because he did not object below. See United States v. Nichols,

151 F.3d 850, 854 (8th Cir. 1998). We find no error, plain or otherwise: the facts

support the criminal history calculation (and we note that the PSR correctly reported

the date of his burglary), see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 (describing criminal history points

assessed for prior sentences); the 4-level enhancement was properly applied, see

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.14(C)) (“another felony offense” for purposes of

subsection (b)(6) means any offense punishable by more than 1 year in prison,

regardless whether criminal charge was brought or conviction obtained); and the court

properly imposed the federal sentence to run consecutively to the state sentence that

Cole received upon revocation of his probation, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) & comment.

(n.3(C)) (describing sentencing options in cases where defendant was on probation at

time of instant offense and has had such probation revoked; Commission recommends

that sentence for instant offense run consecutively to sentence imposed for

revocation).

Second, we conclude that the record is devoid of evidence to support Cole’s

argument that his plea was induced by promises as to his sentence, especially in light

of his plea-hearing testimony disavowing any such promises. See Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (solemn declarations in open court carry strong

presumption of verity). Third, we find nothing suggesting that the court abused its

Appellate Case: 10-1713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Entry ID: 3689082
-3-

discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572

F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review; describing factors that

demonstrate procedural error); United States v. Luleff, 574 F.3d 566, 569 (8th Cir.

2009) (circumstances where court abuses its discretion, resulting in unreasonable

sentence; sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive

reasonableness on appeal). And finally, Cole’s ineffective-assistance claims are not

properly before us in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501

F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to

counsel informing Cole about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for

certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1713 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Entry ID: 3689082