Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02960/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02960-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dale M. Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2960

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Dale M. Brown, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 22, 2005

Filed: April 27, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dale M. Brown appeals the sentence the district court*

 imposed after Brown

pleaded guilty to drug and forfeiture charges. Under a Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the court sentenced Brown to 108 months in

prison and 4 years supervised release, and ordered forfeiture of $2,306. Brown’s

counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing Brown’s sentence was imposed in violation of his Sixth Amendment

rights, and the currency seized from Brown’s residence should not have been forfeited

Appellate Case: 04-2960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Entry ID: 1896114
-2-

or taken into account in calculating drug quantity. Brown filed a supplemental brief

contending that defense counsel was ineffective.

These arguments fail. First, Brown cannot properly challenge, under United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), or otherwise, the sentence to which he

stipulated in his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement because he voluntarily exposed

himself to a specific punishment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(3), (c); United States v.

Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). Second, Brown voluntarily, knowingly,

and intelligently pleaded guilty to the forfeiture count and thus agreed to forfeit the

money. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977); United States v.

Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1104 (8th Cir. 1999). Finally, Brown’s

ineffective-assistance claim should be deferred to proceedings under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 in which an appropriate record may be developed. See United States v.

Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). 

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

80 (1988), and finding no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the district court. We also

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Entry ID: 1896114