Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Johnson BEARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-09
Citations: 678 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 16-3394
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Johnson BEARD, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Johnson BEARD, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-3394
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 6, 2017
Filed: March 9, 2017
Martin Joseph McLaughlin, Ravi T. Na-rayan, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Eric Johnson Beard, Pro Se
Christopher James Nathan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eric Beard, who pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense, appeals the sentence that the District Court imposed, which was based in part on an upward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.3(a). On appeal, his 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 Court erred by departing upward and that Beard's sentence is substantively unreasonable. Beard has filed a pro se brief challenging his sentence and claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
To begin, we decline to consider Beard's ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims should be litigated in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed). As for Beard's sentence, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under § 4A1.3(a) and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that departures from the sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.