Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01444/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01444-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noni Russell
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. 08-1444

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Noni Russell, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2008

Filed: August 8, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Noni Russell challenges the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1

imposed after she pleaded guilty to identity fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2, 1028(a)(7). Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Russell has filed a pro se supplemental

brief. For the reasons discussed below, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

Appellate Case: 08-1444 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459428
-2-

In the Anders brief, counsel raises numerous potential issues for appeal,

including: (1) the validity of Russell’s guilty plea; (2) the reasonableness of Russell’s

sentence; and (3) the effectiveness of her counsel. After carefully reviewing all of the

issues raised in counsel’s brief and Russell’s brief, we conclude that none have merit.

We hold that Russell cannot challenge her guilty plea for the first time on 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 direct appeal). We also conclude that

Russell’s 3-month prison sentence is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128

S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (appellate court must review sentence under abuse-ofdiscretion standard whether sentence imposed is inside or outside Guidelines range);

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court abuses its

discretion by imposing unreasonable sentence). Finally, to the extent Russell

challenges the effectiveness of her counsel, we decline to review her claim in this

direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th

Cir. 2006) (declining to review claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct

appeal; claim is more properly raised in separate motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255).

Reviewing the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),

we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-1444 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459428