Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03318/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03318-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Lamar Crawford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3318

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Jeffrey Lamar Crawford, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 28, 2010

Filed: May 20, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Crawford directly appeals after he was sentenced in the district court1

upon his guilty plea to knowingly possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or

more of a substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

On appeal, Crawford’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Crawford has filed a pro se supplemental

brief, in which he argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated. He has also filed

Appellate Case: 09-3318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Entry ID: 3666610
-2-

two petitions for a writ of mandamus, a motion to dismiss the underlying indictment,

two motions for appointment of new counsel, and a motion to supplement the record.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Crawford’s right to a speedy trial has not

been violated, that the district court committed no procedural or substantive error in

sentencing Crawford, and that there is no basis for granting a writ of mandamus. See

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) (periods of delay shall be excluded in computing time within

which trial must commence if they resulted from, inter alia, proceeding to determine

mental capacity, interlocutory appeal, or any pretrial motion); United States v.

Bonilla-Filomeno, 579 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 2009) (periods of delay caused by

pretrial motions are excluded from calculation, as are continuances granted by court

in order to best serve ends of justice); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461

(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that

district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive

reasonableness of sentence; describing factors demonstrating procedural error); In re

MidAmerican Energy Co., 286 F.3d 483, 486 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (mandamus

is extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances, such as those

amounting to judicial usurpation of power). Last, to the extent that Crawford’s pro

se filings raise an ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to address it on direct

appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007)

(appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceedings).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s judgment, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Crawford’s

mandamus petitions and pro se motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Entry ID: 3666610