# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 29 75

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Osc ar Lam ar Mi m s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 9, 2 01 7 Fi le d: May 1, 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A jury fo un d Osc ar Lam ar Mi m s gu il ty of co ns pi rin g to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e he ro in
, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), an d 84 6. Thedi st ric t co ur t, 1 se nt en ced Mi m s to 12 0 m on th s in pr is on

. Mi m s’s co un se l ha s fil ed a

br ie f un de r And er

s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)
, arg ui ng th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce, th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce, an d th e effe ct iv en es s of c o un se l.
Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

The ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce fail s in pa rt bec au se th e jury he ard nu m ero us reco rd ed te le ph on e co nv ers at io ns rel at ed to a ne two rk of in di vi du al s in vo lv ed in th e di st rib ut i o n o f h e ro in
, an d so m e of th e cal ls es ta bl is he d Mi m s’s kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ti on in pu rch as in g he ro in fo r red is tri bu ti on

. Se e Uni te d S t at es v. Rami re z , 36 2 F

. 3 d 5 2 1
, 5 2 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. Peel er , 77 9 F.3 d 77 3, 77 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (ev id en ce of mu l ti pl e sa le s of dr ug s

su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h co ns pi rac y w h e r e de fen da nt was a pa rty to on e or m or e wire ta p p e d co nv ers at io ns di sc us si ng as pe ct s of he ro in bu si ne ss , an d in di cat in g
sp eak er’s kn owl ed ge an d in vo lv em en t in co m m on dr ug -d is tri bu ti on sc he m e). Mi m s

rece iv ed th e st at ut or y m in im um se nt en ce, an d th ere is no in di cat io n in th e reco rd th at th e se nt en ce is un reas on ab le

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Fee mst er , 57 2 F .3d 45 5, 4 61 -6 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). In effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s are u s u a l l y b es t le ft fo r
pr oc eed in gs un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 , whe re th e reco rd can be de ve lo pe d as need ed

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Davi es , 58 3 F.3 d 10 81 , 1 09 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). An in de pe nd en t

rev ie w of th e reco rd rev eal s no no nf riv ol ou s is su e fo r rev ie w. Se e Pen so n v. Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 7 5, 8 0 (1 98 8)

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed , and co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is gra nt ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

1 The Hon or ab le Ro dn ey W

. Si pp el
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-