Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03693/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03693-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny L. Cornelious
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3693

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Johnny L. Cornelious, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 6, 2007 

 Filed: November 13, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Johnny L. Cornelious (Cornelious) pled guilty to distributing more than

5 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the district court1

sentenced Cornelious to 87 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On

appeal, Cornelious’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and moved to withdraw. Cornelious filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the

reasons discussed below, we reject all of the arguments raised on appeal, and we grant

counsel’s withdrawal motion.

Appellate Case: 06-3693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2007 Entry ID: 3372174
-2-

First, the sentencing transcript shows Cornelious was held responsible for only

5-20 grams of cocaine base, consistent with the amounts in the indictment and plea

agreement. Second, Cornelious’s claim he was never provided with a copy of the

presentence report is not supported by the record. Third, a direct criminal appeal is

not a vehicle to remedy an alleged information leak by the government that has caused

a defendant past hardship in prison. Fourth, matters to which defense counsel made

and withdrew objections below--the application of an aggravating-role enhancement

and the calculation of the criminal history score--are deemed intentionally

relinquished or abandoned and need not be reviewed on appeal. See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir.

1999). Fifth, Cornelious’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised,

if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449

F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm the

judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2007 Entry ID: 3372174