Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02354/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02354-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rasheen Murdock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2354

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Rasheen Murdock

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

 ____________

Submitted: March 11, 2020

Filed: March 16, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Rasheen Murdock appeals after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to

distribute a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, aiding and abetting

Appellate Case: 19-2354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2020 Entry ID: 4891357
the distribution of methamphetamine, and witness tampering; and the district court1

sentenced him to a prison term within the advisory range under the United States

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”). His counsel has moved to withdraw,

and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

Murdock’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. In a pro se brief, Murdock raises

several issues related to the pre-trial proceedings, the trial, and sentencing.

Asto Murdock’s challengesto pre-trial proceedings, even if we were to accept

his unsupported assertions that the government presented false evidence to the grand

jury, any errors were rendered harmless by the jury’s guilty verdict. See United States

v. Wilson, 565 F.3d 1059, 1069-70 (8thCir. 2009) (explaining grand jury proceedings

are afforded strong presumption of regularity; even assuming there were errors in

charging decision resulting from conduct of the prosecution, guilty verdict rendered

those errors harmless). In addition, any issues related to bond are moot in light of

Murdock’s conviction. Cf. United States v. Askia, 893 F.3d 1110, 1122 (8th Cir.

2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2705 (2019). To the extent he raises speedy-trial

claims, he waived any argument that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were

violated by failing to assert those rights prior to trial, see United States v. Jones, 795

F.3d 791, 798 (8th Cir. 2015); and, on plain-error review, we conclude there was no

violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, cf. United States v. Thornberg, 676 F.3d

703, 706 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Summage, 575 F.3d

864, 875-76 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding right to speedy trial under Sixth Amendment

was not violated where government was not primary cause of delay, defendant did not

promptly assert right to speedy trial, and he failed to establish prejudice).

As to Murdock’s challenges to the trial, we discern no Confrontation Clause

violation, and we conclude the evidence at trial was sufficient to support his

1The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States DistrictCourtfor

the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-2354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2020 Entry ID: 4891357
convictions. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008)

(standard of review). As to the drug offenses, the evidence showed Murdock

suppliedmethamphetamine for distribution to others, and he paid two co-conspirators

to deliver methamphetamine for him. See United States v. Williams, 534 F.3d 980,

985 (8th Cir. 2008) (elements of drug conspiracy); see also United States v. Miller,

698 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of aiding and abetting distribution of

controlled substance). Asto the witness-tampering offense, the evidence showed that

while Murdock was detained on the instant charges, he persuaded a co-conspirator

to write a letter to the government stating Murdock was innocent. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 1512(b)(1) (elements of witness tampering).

Asto the sentencing challenges, Murdock’s assertion he was unable to review

the presentence report is belied by his statements at sentencing. Furthermore, we

discern no error in the district court’s Guidelines calculations, see United States v.

Outlaw, 946 F.3d 1015, 1019 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review); and we conclude

Murdock’ssentence is notsubstantively unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster,

572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8thCir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness).

To the extent Murdock intended to raise ineffective assistance of counsel

claims on direct appeal, we decline to consider them. See United States v. RamirezHernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are

usually best litigated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),

we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and grant counsel leave to

withdraw.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 19-2354 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2020 Entry ID: 4891357