Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02607/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02607-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Glenn Hayes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2607

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

James Glenn Hayes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 17, 2008

Filed: January 29, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Hayes pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture a mixture or substance

containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and

possessing pseudoephedrine knowing that it would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). The district court1

 varied

downward from the advisory Guidelines sentence of life, and sentenced Hayes to 324

months in prison followed by 5 years of supervised release for the conspiracy count,

and a concurrent 240-month prison sentence and 3 years of supervised release for the

Appellate Case: 06-2607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2008 Entry ID: 3396369
-2-

possession count. On appeal, Hayes’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Counsel argues in the Anders brief that the sentence imposed is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, however, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable

given the court’s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007) (appellate court must review

sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether sentence is inside

or outside Guidelines range); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.

2005) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

In a pro se supplemental brief, Hayes contends that his counsel was ineffective

at the sentencing hearing, and that the district court’s imposition of sentencing

enhancements was contrary to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He also

seeks the appointment of new counsel. We decline to review Hayes’s ineffectiveassistance claim in this direct appeal, see United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449

F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (declining to review ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim on direct appeal; claim is more properly raised in separate motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255); and the district court did not violate Hayes’s constitutional rights

in applying the sentencing enhancements because the court treated the Guidelines as

advisory, see Booker, 543 U.S. at 259 (excising statutory provision that requires

sentencing courts to impose sentence within applicable Guidelines range allows

Guidelines to satisfy constitutional requirements).

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, deny Hayes’s request for new counsel, and affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2008 Entry ID: 3396369