Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan Ramon PEREZ, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-05
Citations: 220 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 05-3883
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan Ramon PEREZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 220
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan Ramon PEREZ, Appellant.
No. 05-3883.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 4, 2007.
Filed: April 5, 2007.
Michael Huffman, Independence, MO, for appellant.
Juan Ramon Perez, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Michael S. Oliver, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Juan Ramon Perez appeals his conviction and 168-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering conspiracies. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that Perez's sentence, imposed at the bottom of an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 168-210 months, is too long. Following careful review, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. See United States v. Garnica, 477 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (in cases where there is no dispute concerning district court's calculation of advisory Guidelines range, reviewing court must only determine whether sentence imposed by district court is reasonable).
Turning to the arguments raised in the pro se supplemental brief, we note that any ineffective-assistance argument must be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record can be properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.2003). Perez's other pro se arguments, to the extent they relate to his case, are refuted by the plea transcript. Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) ("Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.")
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.