Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02885/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02885-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Michael W. Warner
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2885

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michael W. Warner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2005

Filed: August 3, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael W. Warner (Warner) appeals his conviction and sentence imposed by

the district court1

 after he pled guilty to bank robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

In November 2003, the district court conducted a change-of-plea hearing under

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. As relevant, the court advised Warner he

faced a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, and he would not be able to withdraw

Appellate Case: 04-2885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2005 Entry ID: 1935714
-2-

his guilty plea if he was unhappy with his sentence. Thereafter, the presentence

report recommended a Guidelines imprisonment range of 151to 188 months, based

on Warner’s status as a career offender. Warner then filed pro se motions to replace

his counsel, to withdraw his guilty plea, for a plea agreement providing for a specific

sentence, and for an investigation into allegedly false testimony by grand jury

witnesses. Following a hearing, the district court advised Warner he could proceed

pro se, but ordered his counsel to continue to serve as standby counsel. The district

court also denied Warner’s motion to withdraw his plea, and advised Warner the

court had no authority to dictate a plea agreement providing for a specific sentence,

or to investigate grand jury testimony. 

At the July 2004 sentencing hearing, by which time Warner’s counsel had

resumed his role, the district court denied Warner’s request for a continuance;

concluded the Guidelines were unconstitutional, but they would nevertheless be

considered as advisory; overruled Warner’s objection to the use of his prior state

convictions for 1990 and 1997 bank robberies as a basis for imposing career-offender

status; and sentenced Warner to 175 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised

release, plus restitution of $2,522, owed jointly and severally with a codefendant. 

On appeal, Warner’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Warner has filed two pro se

supplemental briefs, as well as motions for new counsel. Following careful review

of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Warner’s

motion for new counsel, see United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1011 (2003); the denial of Warner’s motion to withdraw his

guilty plea, see United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628, 629 (8th Cir. 2003); and the

denial of a sentencing continuance, see United States v. Quiroz, 374 F.3d 682, 684

(8th Cir. 2004). Because the instant offense is Warner’s third bank-robbery

conviction, we also reject his argument that he should not have been sentenced as a

career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1; United States v. Mayotte, 76 F.3d 887, 889

Appellate Case: 04-2885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2005 Entry ID: 1935714
-3-

(8th Cir. 1996). Warner’s remaining arguments--including his arguments regarding

the need for an investigation of perjury by grand jury witnesses, his wish for a more

favorable plea agreement, the validity of his prior convictions, and the harshness of

his sentence--are without merit and do not warrant further discussion. To the extent

Warner wishes to argue his counsel was ineffective, he must do so in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998). 

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

deny Warner’s motions for new counsel. The judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2885 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2005 Entry ID: 1935714