United States v. Levi Anders ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-2866
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Levi Anders
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
    ____________
    Submitted: February 4, 2022
    Filed: February 25, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    A jury convicted Levi Anders of attempting to possess methamphetamine
    with intent to distribute. See 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. In an
    Anders brief, Anders’s current counsel suggests his last attorney was ineffective.
    See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). A pro se brief claims that the
    Controlled Substances Act—the statute Anders violated—is not a valid exercise of
    Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3;
    United States v. Morrison, 
    529 U.S. 598
    , 616–17 (2000). We affirm.
    Anders’s Commerce Clause challenge is foreclosed by precedent. See
    Gonzales v. Raich, 
    545 U.S. 1
    , 9 (2005) (holding that the Controlled Substances Act
    “is a valid exercise of federal power” under the Commerce Clause); see also United
    States v. Davis, 
    288 F.3d 359
    , 361–62 (8th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Controlled Substances
    Act is a valid exercise of Congressional power under the [C]ommerce [C]lause.”).
    And his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim will have to await collateral review.
    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).
    We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court 1 and grant counsel
    permission to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for
    the Eastern District of Missouri.
    -2-