United States v. Corey McKinney , 577 F. App'x 631 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 13-3121
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Corey M. McKinney, also known as Corey M. McKinley, also known as Monroe,
    also known as Chef FireFlame Corey
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: October 1, 2014
    Filed: October 3, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    After Corey McKinney pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2251
    (a), and sex trafficking of a child, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1591
    (a) and (b)(2), the district court1 sentenced him to concurrent terms of
    15 years and life in prison, respectively. In this direct appeal, his counsel has filed a
    brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and McKinney has filed
    multiple pro se supplemental briefs.
    Addressing the arguments raised, we first conclude that the district court did not
    abuse its discretion in denying McKinney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which
    was based on unsupported assertions that his plea was entered in ignorance and
    without full discovery. See United States v. Alvarado, 
    615 F.3d 916
    , 920 (8th Cir.
    2010) (trial court can deny motion to withdraw guilty plea if allegations in motion are
    inherently unreliable, are not supported by specific facts, or are not grounds for
    withdrawal even if true). In addition, the plea stipulations establish a factual basis for
    the convictions, and the plea transcript shows that McKinney, who was found
    competent to proceed, entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily,
    aware of the possible sentence he faced. McKinney’s ineffective-assistance claims
    are more appropriately raised in proceedings under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , see United
    States v. McAdory, 
    501 F.3d 868
    , 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007), and his remaining
    arguments are foreclosed by his valid guilty plea, see United States v. Smith, 
    422 F.3d 715
    , 724 (8th Cir. 2005), including his arguments about witness testimony, the
    validity of searches and admissibility of evidence, and the government’s burden of
    proof.
    After reviewing the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,
    
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the
    judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny
    McKinney’s motion to enlarge the record.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable David Gregory Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri.
    -2-