United States v. Nathaniel Love , 176 F. App'x 708 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                            United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-2443
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    Nathaniel Love,                           *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 7, 2006
    Filed: April 19, 2006
    ___________
    Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this direct criminal appeal, Nathaniel Love challenges the sentence imposed
    by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced
    Love to 70 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal,
    his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). Love has filed supplemental briefs and motions seeking appointment
    of counsel, and copies of the full record and the evidence against him.
    1
    The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    Counsel argues that Love’s 70-month prison sentence is too harsh for the crime.
    To the extent this is intended to be an Eighth Amendment challenge, we reject it. See
    United States v. Collins, 
    340 F.3d 672
    , 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment
    forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to crime); cf. United
    States v. Johnson, 
    22 F.3d 674
    , 682-83 (6th Cir. 1994) (15-year sentence on basis of
    prior convictions was not grossly disproportionate to felon-in-possession offense).
    We also conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Haack,
    
    403 F.3d 997
    , 1003 (8th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review), cert. denied,
    
    126 S. Ct. 276
    (2005); United States v. Lincoln, 
    413 F.3d 716
    , 717-18 (8th Cir.)
    (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must
    rebut presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 840
    (2005).
    In his pro se materials, Love argues that counsel was ineffective in various
    ways, but these ineffective-assistance claims are not properly raised in this direct
    criminal appeal. See United States v. Halter, 
    411 F.3d 949
    , 951 (8th Cir. 2005) (per
    curiam) (this court generally requires ineffective-assistance claims to be raised in 28
    U.S.C. § 2255 motion unless record has been fully developed or miscarriage of justice
    would result). To the extent Love is seeking to set aside his plea as involuntary, he
    is required to first present the claim to the district court, see United States v. Murphy,
    
    899 F.2d 714
    , 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (claim of involuntary guilty plea must first be
    presented to district court, and is not cognizable on direct appeal), and even if he had,
    his allegations that counsel misled him into accepting the plea are insufficient to
    justify withdrawal of his plea as involuntary, see United States v. Granados, 
    168 F.3d 343
    , 345 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (defendant’s reliance on attorney’s mistaken
    impression about length of sentence is insufficient to render plea involuntary as long
    as court informed defendant of maximum possible sentence).
    Love also contends that the firearm at issue was inoperable, and that he never
    pointed it at anyone. Even if true, these contentions do not undermine the factual
    basis for his plea, see United States v. Maddix, 
    96 F.3d 311
    , 316 (8th Cir. 1996);
    -2-
    United States v. Anderson, 
    78 F.3d 420
    , 422 (8th Cir. 1996), and for purposes of
    sentencing, the district court was entitled to rely on the unobjected-to hearsay
    statement of two persons (as reported in the presentence report) that Love pointed the
    gun at them, see United States v. McCully, 
    407 F.3d 931
    , 933 (8th Cir. 2005).
    Finally, our review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988),
    persuades us that there are no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the
    sentence and conviction. We also deny Love’s pending motions, and we grant
    counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -3-