Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03861/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03861-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shonna Lynn Jordan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3861

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Shonna Lynn Jordan, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 28, 2007

 Filed: January 7, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shonna Lynn Jordan challenges the 235-month prison sentence the district

court1

 imposed after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. Jordan’s counsel has moved to

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

arguing that the district court erred in handling Jordan’s case. In a pro se

supplemental brief, Jordan indicates that her counsel was ineffective and challenges

Appellate Case: 06-3861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2008 Entry ID: 3388560
-2-

the drug quantity attributed to her. She has also moved for appointment of new

counsel. 

Ineffective-assistance claims are more properly brought in a proceeding under

28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004),

and Jordan cannot now contest drug quantity because she stipulated to it in her plea

agreement, see United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). We also

conclude that Jordan’s sentence, which was at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines

range, is not unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007);

United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007). The district court

expressly considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and nothing in the

record suggests that the court misapplied those factors, see Harris, 493 F.3d at 932-33.

We also find no basis to conclude that the district court mishandled Jordan’s case. 

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

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we decline to appoint new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2008 Entry ID: 3388560