United States v. Joshua Woolridge , 572 F. App'x 463 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-1666
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Joshua Todd Woolridge
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: July 22, 2014
    Filed: July 25, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Joshua Woolridge appeals after he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex
    offender and the District Court1 sentenced him to thirty months in prison, a term
    1
    The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    within the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has
    filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing, in essence, that
    Woolridge’s prison term is substantively unreasonable. In a pro se supplemental brief,
    Woolridge claims that he has received ineffective assistance of counsel.
    Upon careful review, we conclude that Woolridge’s prison term is not
    substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007)
    (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions and noting that if a sentence is
    within the Guidelines range, a court of appeals may apply a presumption of
    reasonableness). Further, we decline to consider Woolridge’s ineffective-assistance
    claims and related assertions on direct appeal. See United States v. Jennings, 
    662 F.3d 988
    , 991–92 (8th Cir. 2011) (deferring possible ineffective-assistance claims to a 28
    U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding). Finally, having reviewed the record 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, and we grant counsel’s motion to
    withdraw subject to counsel informing Woolridge about procedures for seeking
    rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1666

Citation Numbers: 572 F. App'x 463

Judges: Benton, Bowman, Murphy, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/25/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023