1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2582

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Willie Perkins, also known as *

Uncle Boo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 23, 2008

Filed: May 15, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Acknowledging that he was subject to the career-offender sentencing guideline,

see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, Willie Perkins pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base after

having previously been convicted of one or more felony drug offenses, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 851. The district court1

 granted a 15%

substantial-assistance reduction pursuant to the government’s motion, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e); U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, calculated an advisory guidelines imprisonment range
-2-

of 223-278 months, and sentenced Perkins to 223 months in prison and 8 years of

supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Perkins’s criminal

history was overstated because of the career-offender enhancement, making the

sentence unreasonable. In his pro se supplemental brief, Perkins argues that his plea

was not intelligent because he did not understand the career-offender enhancement,

and that his counsel was ineffective. 

Perkins may not challenge his guilty plea in this direct appeal because he did

not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v.

Villareal-Amarillas, 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 989

(2007). Any ineffective-assistance claims should be raised in collateral proceedings.

See United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004).

We conclude that Perkins’s sentence, which was within the advisory guidelines

range, is not unreasonable. We presume that a sentence within the advisory guideline

range is reasonable, see United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007)

(court of appeals accords sentence within advisory Guidelines range presumption of

reasonableness), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008). The record demonstrates that

the court considered Perkins’s history and characteristics, and specifically discussed

the nature and circumstances of his career-offender predicate offenses. Nothing in the

record suggests that the court misapplied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Harris,

493 F.3d at 932.

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel

leave to withdraw, subject to the conditions that counsel promptly comply with the

requirements of Part V of this Court’s Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act by

advising Perkins of the procedures for filing a petition for writ of certiorari pro se, and
-3-

that counsel also advise Perkins of the procedures for filing a petition for rehearing

pro se. 

______________________________