United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1583

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Bryan Lee Gregory

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

 Submitted: December 13, 2019

Filed: December 26, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Bryan Gregory appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense; and the district

court1

sentenced him to the statutory-maximum prison term. Gregory has been

1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
granted leave to proceed pro se, and has filed briefs arguing his counsel was

ineffective; his plea was involuntary; and the district court erred in denying his

motions to withdraw his plea and to suppress evidence, and in imposing two United

States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) enhancements and special

conditions of supervised release. He also moves to supplement the record with

evidence related to the suppression issue.

Initially, we note Gregory’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. 

Assuming the appeal waiver does not bar this appeal, this court addresses Gregory’s

arguments, except that we decline to consider Gregory’sineffective-assistance claim

on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th

Cir. 2006) (holding ineffective-assistance claims are best litigated in collateral

proceedings).

We conclude the plea colloquy shows Gregory knowingly and voluntarily

entered his guilty plea, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

his motions to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929,

931 (8th Cir. 2008) (considering whether defendant established “fair and just” reason

to withdraw plea after Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy; reviewing for abuse of discretion

decision to deny motion to withdraw plea; and reviewing de novo whether plea was

knowing and voluntary). Furthermore, Gregory’s challenge to the denial of his

suppression motion is foreclosed by his valid guilty plea, see United States v.

Muratella, 843 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding a valid guilty plea generally

“foreclosesindependent claimsrelating to the deprivation of constitutionalrightsthat

occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea”); and his motion to supplement the

record is therefore moot.

We also conclude the district court did not plainly err in applying an

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, given that Gregory agreed to that enhancement

in the plea agreement. See United States v. Barrett, 173 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 1999)

-2-
(“A defendant may not challenge an application of the Guidelinesto which he agreed

in a plea agreement (unless he proves the agreement invalid or succeeds in

withdrawing from it).”); see also United States v. Kirlin, 859 F.3d 539, 543 (8th Cir.

2017) (stating this court reviews district court’s application of Guidelines de novo,

and itsfindings of fact for clear error; if defendant failsto timely object, review is for

plain error). We further conclude the district court did not err in applying an

enhancement based on Gregory’s conduct during an incident that was part of the

offense charged in the indictment, and during which, he stipulated, he had possessed

the firearm. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(1) (permitting 6-level enhancement if

defendant, during course of offense or immediate flight therefrom and in manner

creating substantial risk of serious bodily injury, assaulted law enforcement officer).

Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

the challenged special conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Godfrey,

863 F.3d 1088, 1101 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing special conditions of supervised

release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493 (8th

Cir. 2011) (noting sentencing court has broad discretion when imposing release

conditions; when crafting special condition, court must make individualized inquiry

into facts and circumstances underlying case and make sufficient findings on record

so as to ensure condition satisfies statutory requirements; purposes in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) include protection of public).

Accordingly, we deny Gregory’s motion to supplement the record, and we

affirm.

______________________________

-3-