#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shurron S. ROBERTS Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-1293

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Filed: July 13, 2017

John Raymond Mantovani, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Shurron S. Roberts, Pro Se

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Shurron S. Roberts pled guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute over 100 grams of heroin and to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Roberts’s counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court1 erred in sentencing Roberts as a career offender and as an armed career criminal based on convictions that were over 15 years old. Roberts has filed a pro se brief and a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) in which he also challenges these sentencing enhancements and claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Because Roberts did not object in the district court, this court reviews application of the career-offender and armed-career-criminal enhancements only for plain error. *See United States v. Pirani,*406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (errors not properly preserved are reviewed for plain error). This court concludes that the district court did not plainly err in determining that Roberts was a career offender based on his convictions *804for two controlled substance offenses, or in determining that he was an armed career criminal based on those two drug convictions and his Missouri conviction for second-degree assault. *See*U.S.S.G. §§ 4Bl.l(a) (defining career offender); 4A1.2(e)(l) (count any prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month that resulted in defendant being incarcerated during 15-year period before instant offense); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 (armed-career-criminal provision applicable to defendants subject to enhanced sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)); *United States v. Rodriguez,*612 F.3d 1049, 1056 (8th Cir. 2010) (ACCA contains no time limit for predicate offenses).

As to Roberts’s pro se arguments, this court finds no merit to his claim that, contrary to the holding of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the district court relied on the ACCA’s residual clause in concluding that the assault conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate; and the court declines to consider the ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. *See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez,*449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed).

Having conducted an independent review under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issue.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson,' United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.