Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04001/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian R. Shafer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4001

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Brian R. Shafer, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006 

Filed: April 18, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian R. Shafer (Shafer) appeals his conviction and sentence entered by the

district court1

 upon his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His counsel filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Shafer’s guilty plea was not knowing and

voluntary because during the plea colloquy, Shafer was under the influence of

prescription drugs. In a pro se supplemental brief, Shafer appears to join counsel in

Appellate Case: 04-4001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2006 Entry ID: 2034343
-2-

arguing the prescription drugs compromised his ability to plead guilty voluntarily, and

argues additionally (1) his trial counsel and the government conspired against him in

sharing trial information, (2) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during discovery, (3)

he was wrongly charged and convicted, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of

counsel.

First, the attack on the voluntariness of Shafer’s plea is not properly before us,

because he failed to first raise the issue in the district court by seeking to withdraw his

guilty plea; rather, at sentencing Shafer affirmatively represented he wished to

maintain his plea. See United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990)

(claim of involuntary guilty plea “first must be presented to the district court and [is]

not cognizable on direct appeal”). Second, Shafer’s guilty plea forecloses all pre-plea

non-jurisdictional attacks on his conviction, including prosecutorial misconduct. See

United States v. Beck, 250 F.3d 1163, 1166 (8th Cir. 2001). Third, we find nothing

in the record to indicate Shafer was wrongly charged or convicted. Finally, Shafer’s

ineffective-assistance claim is not properly before us either, as ineffective-assistance

claims generally must be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings before the district

court where the record can be properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330

F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2006 Entry ID: 2034343