Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02156/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Bowman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2156

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

James E. Bowman, also known as Drake

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri

 ____________

 Submitted: October 31, 2024

Filed: December 10, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Bowman appeals after the district court1 vacated a conviction and

sentence on one count and resentenced him on the remaining three counts to time

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 24-2156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Entry ID: 5464574
served plus supervised release. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging his convictions and

sentence. Bowman filed a pro se brief challenging his convictions and sentence for

different reasons.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in

instructing the jury. See United States v. Patterson, 68 F.4th 402, 421 (8th Cir. 2023)

(standard of review); United States v. Weckman, 982 F.3d 1167, 1175 (8th Cir. 2020)

(under plain error review, considering whether jury instructions, taken as a whole,

adequately advised the jury of the essential elements of the offenses and the burden

of proof required of the government). Next, we conclude the court committed no

plain error under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019). See Greer

v. United States, 593 U.S. 503, 507–09 (2021) (standard of review; defendant faces

uphill climb in trying to satisfy substantial-rights prong of plain-error test based on

argument that he did not know he was a felon; defendant has burden of showing

reasonable probability that outcome of trial proceeding would have been different

absent Rehaif error). Counsel’s double-jeopardy claim is unreviewable, see United

States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 1998) (double jeopardy claims may not

be raised for the first time on appeal), and in any event, the claim lacks merit, see

United States v. Thomas, 971 F.2d 147, 149 (8th Cir. 1992) (no double jeopardy

violation occurs when a person is convicted of conspiracy to commit substantive

crime and aiding and abetting the same substantive crime). To the extent counsel

argues that Bowman was sentenced to multiple punishments for the same offense, the

assertion is unsupported by the record. 

We reject counsel’s argument that the district court was bound by this court’s

Guidelines calculation in United States v. Bowman, 722 Fed. Appx. 599 (8th Cir.

2018) (unpublished per curiam), after vacating one of the counts of conviction and

resentencing Bowman. See United States v. Dennis, 81 F.4th 764, 769 (8th Cir. 2023)

(under sentencing package doctrine, court may vacate entire sentence and reconfigure

-2-

Appellate Case: 24-2156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Entry ID: 5464574
sentencing plan after vacating one of several convictions). There is no support for

counsel’s argument that Bowman was not permitted to challenge the fifth addendum

to the presentence report; moreover, to the extent counsel intended to challenge the

time-served sentence, that challenge is likely moot. See United States v. Jidoefor, 97

F.4th 1144, 1155 (8th Cir. 2024). 

We reject Bowman’s pro se arguments that this court lacks jurisdiction over

this appeal, and decline to consider whether the district court should have resolved

an earlier 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion instead of ordering a resentencing, as the district

court’s January 2023 judgment and conviction is the only order properly before us. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Even assuming Bowman’s challenge to the validity of the

special housing supervised-release condition has not been waived, because his

counsel explicitly requested the condition at the resentencing hearing, see United

States v. Corn, 47 F.4th 892, 895 (8th Cir. 2022) (under invited error doctrine,

defendant who invites district court to make particular ruling waives right to claim

ruling was erroneous on appeal), the record demonstrates the court did not plainly err

in imposing the condition, see United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692, 694 (8th Cir.

2003) (standard of review); see also United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 518 (8th

Cir. 2012) (noting 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(11) and U.S.S.G. § 5B1.3(e)(1) expressly

authorize a special supervised release condition requiring temporary residence at a

residential reentry center, and this court has “regularly upheld” such a condition as

reasonable). Finally, we conclude there is no support for Bowman’s contention that

counsel was “forced” upon him at resentencing, and to the extent Bowman intended

to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we decline to consider it on direct

appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir.

2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best raised in collateral proceedings

where the record can be properly developed).

-3-

Appellate Case: 24-2156 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Entry ID: 5464574
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel leave to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 24-2156 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/10/2024 Entry ID: 5464574