Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03836/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03836-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Jordan De La Pena-Arcadia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3836

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Daniel Jordan De La Pena-Arcadia, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 23, 2007

Filed: November 28, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Jordan de la Pena-Arcadia challenges the 97-month prison sentence the

district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of

5 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846.

De la Pena-Arcadia’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that de la Pena-Arcadia contends

he did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily plead guilty because he was not

properly advised due to the ineffective assistance of counsel, and suggesting de la

Appellate Case: 06-3836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2007 Entry ID: 3376471
-2-

Pena-Arcadia should be appointed alternative counsel to avoid the appearance of a

conflict of interest.

De la Pena-Arcadia’s involuntary-plea claim is not cognizable in this direct

criminal appeal because he did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty

plea, see United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990), and he must

pursue any ineffective-assistance claims in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see

United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We conclude that de la Pena-Arcadia’s

sentence, which was at the bottom of the properly calculated advisory Guidelines

range, is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United

States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. In light of our conclusion that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal, we decline to appoint new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2007 Entry ID: 3376471