United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2419

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Justin Charles Munson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: January 30, 2018

Filed: February 9, 2018 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Justin Munson directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district

court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
methamphetamine. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is

substantively unreasonable. Munson has filed a pro se brief arguing that: the district

court lacked jurisdiction; he received ineffective assistance of counsel; his plea was

unknowing or involuntary; the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity

supporting his base offense level; and there was no evidence proving the

manufacturing element of the crime. 

To begin, we conclude that there is no merit to Munson’s contention that the

district court lacked jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (district courts have original

jurisdiction of all offenses against laws of United States); United States v. White

Horse, 316 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction in every federal

criminal prosecution comes from § 3231). Next, we decline to consider Munson’s

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v.

Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance

claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be

properly developed). 

We also conclude that Munson’s assertion that his guilty plea was unknowing

or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move in the

district court to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029,

1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary is not

cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to

withdraw guilty plea). We further conclude that his evidentiary argument was waived

by his valid guilty plea and, in any event, is contradicted by his statements at the plea

hearing. See United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (by entering

valid guilty plea, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects or errors); Nguyen

v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations

during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).

-2-
As to the sentencing arguments, we first conclude that Munson waived his

challenge to his base offense level by withdrawing his relevant objections to the

presentence report. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687-88

(8th Cir. 2016) (where defendant withdrew objection to sentencing enhancement in

district court, claim of error on appeal was waived). We also conclude that the district

court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review

of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th

Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed

reasonable). 

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the

judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-3-