United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1715

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Seab Nolen

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: October 4, 2013

Filed: October 9, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Seab Nolen pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). After finding that Nolen was an
armed career criminal (ACC), the district court1

 sentenced him to 192 months in

prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Nolen’s counsel has moved to

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

counsel argues that the court erred by (1) denying Nolen new counsel, (2) denying

Nolen’s request to withdraw his guilty plea, (3) failing to hold a status conference on

his motions for counsel and to withdraw his guilty plea, and (4) sentencing Nolen as

an ACC. Counsel also raises claims of ineffective assistance. In his pro se

supplemental brief, Nolen repeats some of these arguments, raises other ineffectiveassistance arguments, and also argues that the court violated his right to a public trial

when it closed the courtroom at his sentencing hearing. 

Initially we decline to consider the ineffective-assistance arguments in this

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

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

proceedings). As to the remaining arguments, we conclude first that the court did not

abuse its discretion in declining to appoint new counsel and in denying Nolen

permission to withdraw his plea: the court gave him a full opportunity to air his

concerns, but he failed to make the required showing to justify relief as to either

matter. Further, we see no error in the court’s failure to hold a status conference. See

United States v. Gray, 152 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1998) (discussing withdrawal of

guilty plea); United States v. Webster, 84 F.3d 1056, 1062 (8th Cir. 1996) (discussing

motion to substitute court-appointed counsel).

Second, we conclude that Nolen was properly sentenced as an ACC based on

the violent felonies in his criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B); United

States v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review). Third, upon

careful review, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable. See

1

The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Fourth, Nolen

has not demonstrated that the court committed plain error when it closed the

courtroom for a short period of time to privately discuss with Nolen and his counsel

the reasons for Nolen’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel and to

withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 1008, 1013 (8th

Cir. 2003) (standard of review). Finally, after reviewing the record independently

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no non frivolous issues

for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-3-