Court Opinion

ID: 9353700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 17:00:25.196531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:03.036474
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-2014
                       ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Aimee L. Rosenbaum

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                 ____________

                         Submitted: December 30, 2022
                            Filed: January 12, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Aimee Rosenbaum appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she
pleaded guilty to conversion and bankruptcy fraud pursuant to a plea agreement

      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
containing an appeal waiver. Her appellate counsel has moved to withdraw, and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that prior
counsel provided ineffective assistance during Rosenbaum’s post-plea proceedings.

      While the appeal waiver does not prohibit ineffective-assistance claims, we
decline to consider such claims on direct appeal without an adequately developed
record. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006);
United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002). We have also
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-