Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03883/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03883-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Ramon Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3883

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Juan Ramon Perez, * Western District of Missouri.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 4, 2007 

 Filed: April 5, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Ramon Perez appeals his conviction and 168-month sentence imposed by

the district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering conspiracies.

In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that

Perez’s sentence, imposed at the bottom of an advisory Guidelines imprisonment

range of 168-210 months, is too long. Following careful review, we conclude that the

sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. See United States v. Garnica,

477 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (in cases where there is no dispute

Appellate Case: 05-3883 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2007 Entry ID: 3295841
-2-

concerning district court’s calculation of advisory Guidelines range, reviewing court

must only determine whether sentence imposed by district court is reasonable).

Turning to the arguments raised in the pro se supplemental brief, we note that

any ineffective-assistance argument must be raised 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). Perez’s other pro se arguments, to the extent they relate

to his case, are refuted by the plea transcript. Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63,

74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”)

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

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

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3883 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2007 Entry ID: 3295841