Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01519/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01519-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Ronald C. Vaughn
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1519

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Ronald C. Vaughn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2006

Filed: March 10, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Vaughn appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that Vaughn

received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. In a pro se supplemental

brief, Vaughn argues that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) violated his

Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

Appellate Case: 05-1519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2006 Entry ID: 2019335
-2-

We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim in this appeal. See

United States v. Halter, 411 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Because the district court in sentencing Vaughn did not view the Guidelines

as mandatory, there was no error under Blakely. See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59 (2005) (Sixth Amendment problem resulting from

mandatory nature of Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory). To the

extent Vaughn challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, see id. at 261 (appellate

court reviews sentence for unreasonableness), we reject this challenge. The record

does not indicate that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor,

or considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in

weighing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Long Soldier,

431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-04

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). 

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

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2006 Entry ID: 2019335