Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02097/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald E. Tooley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2097

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Donald E. Tooley, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 3, 2007

Filed: July 9, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald E. Tooley (Tooley) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Finding Tooley was an armed career

criminal, the district court sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 15 years in

prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Tooley’s counsel has moved

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

Appellate Case: 06-2097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327435
-2-

Counsel challenges one of the predicate offenses underlying Tooley’s armed-careercriminal status, arguing that stealing a motor vehicle should not automatically be

deemed a “violent felony.” See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining “violent felony”

as a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and “otherwise

involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”).

Tooley has filed a pro se “Motion to Suspend Brief and Briefing Schedule, Withdraw

Counsel and Appoint Appellate Counsel,” in which he argues counsel below was

ineffective, and seeks appointment of new appellate counsel. We reject these

arguments, and affirm the sentence.

Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Burling, 420 F.3d 745, 749 (8th Cir.

2005), we conclude that counsel’s challenge is unavailing. See United States v.

Barbour, 395 F.3d 826, 827-28 (8th Cir. 2005) (ruling under controlling precedent,

a Kansas vehicle theft is violent felony within meaning of § 924(e)). As for Tooley’s

pro se argument, we adhere to the general rule that Tooley must raise his claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record

can be properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th

Cir. 2003).

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

80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,

and we affirm. We also deny Tooley’s pending motion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327435