Court Opinion

ID: 9378078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 17:00:33.095195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.861407
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3302
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America,

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                            v.

                                      Blake Ruel,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: March 6, 2023
                               Filed: March 9, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Blake Ruel appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Ruel pleaded
guilty to offenses involving drugs and firearms. His counsel moved to withdraw and

      1
       The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
reasonableness of the sentence. Ruel moved for new counsel on appeal, stating that
he was misled by his counsel during the plea negotiations.

      As to counsel’s argument, we conclude that Ruel’s sentence was not
unreasonable. The court specifically stated that it had considered all of the factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a
relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of
review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

       As to Ruel’s pro se argument that counsel was ineffective during the plea
negotiations, Ruel did not move to withdraw his plea as involuntary, and we conclude
that his challenge to counsel’s performance would be better addressed on collateral
review. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010); United
States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Ruel’s motion
for new counsel as moot.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-