Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01344/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01344-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jahmal Green
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1344

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jahmal Green, also known as *

Cheeseburger, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2007

Filed: December 13, 2007 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jahmal Green pleaded guilty to distributing .69 grams of a mixture or substance

containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack cocaine) within 1,000 feet of

a protected location after having been previously convicted of one or more felony

drug offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 851, and 860(a). The district

court1

 sentenced Green to a mandatory term of life in prison because he had two or

more prior convictions for felony drug offenses. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (if any

Appellate Case: 07-1344 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Entry ID: 3381900
-2-

person violates § 860 after two or more convictions for felony drug offenses, that

person shall be sentenced to mandatory term of life imprisonment). On appeal,

Green’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons discussed below, we grant counsel’s

motion and affirm.

Counsel argues that the district court erred in accepting Green’s guilty plea

because he did not fully understand that the plea would result in a mandatory sentence

of life in prison. In a pro se appellate filing, Green also contends that he did not

understand his plea. Additionally, he challenges his life sentence, claiming that his

previous drug offenses were “minor,” and asserts that his attorney incorrectly advised

him to plead guilty. 

We conclude that Green cannot first challenge his guilty plea in a direct

criminal appeal. See United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir.

2006) (if defendant fails to attempt to withdraw guilty plea in district court, claim that

guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent is not cognizable on appeal), cert. denied,

127 S. Ct. 989 (2007). We also conclude that the district court did not commit error,

plain or otherwise, when it sentenced Green to life in prison based on his previous

felony drug offenses. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(44) (“felony drug offense” means federal

or state offense that prohibits or restricts conduct relating to drugs and is punishable

by imprisonment for more than one year); United States v. Patterson, 481 F.3d 1029,

1034 (8th Cir. 2007) (failure to raise issue at sentencing results in plain-error review

on appeal). Finally, to the extent Green is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel,

we decline to review his claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. RamirezHernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (declining to review ineffective

assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal; claim is more properly raised in separate

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255).

Appellate Case: 07-1344 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Entry ID: 3381900
-3-

After carefully reviewing the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

US. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1344 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Entry ID: 3381900