Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03128/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Durnal
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3128

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Richard Durnal, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 1, 2005

Filed: July 7, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Durnal (Durnal) appeals the judgment the district court1

 entered after

he pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute more than 500 grams of a

methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. His counsel has moved

to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing the court erred in enhancing Durnal’s sentence based on the uncharged fact

he possessed a weapon in connection with the drug conspiracy. Durnal has filed a pro

Appellate Case: 04-3128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924851
-2-

se supplemental brief arguing his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty and did

not properly defend him; and he seeks appointment of new counsel.

Counsel’s argument fails. The firearm enhancement was based solely on facts

to which Durnal stipulated, resulting in no Sixth Amendment violation. The district

court applied the Guidelines as advisory, rather than as mandatory, and the record

reflects the district court considered the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude

the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756,

764-67 (2005).

The pro se arguments also fail. During thorough questioning at the change-ofplea hearing, Durnal admitted the factual basis for his offense and affirmed he was

pleading guilty voluntarily. See United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1104

(8th Cir. 1999) (to be constitutionally valid, guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary,

and intelligent; because guilty plea constitutes waiver of various constitutional rights,

it must be made with sufficient awareness of relevant circumstances and likely

consequences); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997)

(defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).

Any ineffective-assistance claim should be deferred to proceedings under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 in which an appropriate record may be developed. See United States v.

Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). 

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

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, we deny Durnal’s motion for appointment of new counsel, and

we affirm the judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924851