Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03210/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03210-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Edward Echols
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3210

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Mark Edward Echols, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2010

Filed: June 15, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Mark Echols challenges the 80-month prison

sentence that the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to

distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B), and 846. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in calculating drug quantity, assessing a

dangerous-weapon enhancement, and assigning two criminal history points to a prior

sentence. In a pro se supplemental brief, Echols joins counsel in challenging the

Appellate Case: 09-3210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2010 Entry ID: 3674207
-2-

dangerous-weapon enhancement and the criminal history points. He also argues that

counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing. We affirm. 

At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel withdrew Echols’s objections to the

presentence report’s drug-quantity calculations, dangerous-weapon enhancement, and

assignment of criminal history points. He therefore waived our consideration of those

issues. See United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942, 946 (8th Cir. 2008) (on appeal,

defendant waives issues raised in withdrawn objections to presentence report). We

also conclude that Echols should raise his ineffective-assistance argument in 28

U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824,

827 (8th Cir. 2006).

Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 388 U.S. 75 (1988),

we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we deny Echols’s motion for new appointed counsel. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2010 Entry ID: 3674207