United States v. Lionel Thompson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-2065
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Lionel Thompson
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: October 20, 2021
    Filed: November 4, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Lionel Thompson received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded
    guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal
    his conviction and sentence, except for, as relevant here, ineffective assistance of
    counsel. In an Anders brief, Thompson’s counsel questions the district court’s1
    denial of a motion to appoint new counsel and the substantive reasonableness of the
    sentence. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). A pro se supplemental
    brief discusses the offense-level calculation and raises ineffective assistance of
    counsel.
    The appeal waiver, which is enforceable, covers all but one of these issues.
    See United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity
    of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889–92 (8th Cir.
    2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls
    within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into
    the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a
    miscarriage of justice). For that one, ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to
    consider it now. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 
    449 F.3d 824
    , 826–27
    (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in
    collateral proceedings”).
    Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
    other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–83 (1988).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, grant counsel permission to withdraw, and deny
    the pending pro se motion as moot.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for
    the Eastern District of Missouri.
    -2-