Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-03394/USCOURTS-ca8-16-03394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Johnson Beard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3394

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eric Johnson Beard

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: March 6, 2017

Filed: March 9, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Beard, who pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense, appeals the

sentence that the District Court1

 imposed, which was based in part on an upward

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 16-3394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2017 Entry ID: 4510306 
departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.3(a). On appeal, his counsel has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the District

Court erred by departing upward and that Beard’s sentence is substantively

unreasonable. Beard has filed a pro se brief challenging his sentence and claiming

that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

To begin, we decline to consider Beard’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct

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

2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims should be litigated in collateral

proceedings where the record can be properly developed). As for Beard’s sentence,

we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward

under § 4A1.3(a) and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United

States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that departures from the

sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions). 

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

80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-3394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2017 Entry ID: 4510306