United States v. Michael Golden ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-3081
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Michael Shane Golden
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
    ____________
    Submitted: July 17, 2018
    Filed: July 20, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Michael Golden directly appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district
    1
    court imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense pursuant to a plea agreement
    1
    The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Arkansas.
    containing an appeal waiver. Golden’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed
    a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), challenging the substantive
    and procedural reasonableness of Golden’s sentence. Golden has filed a pro se
    supplemental brief, in which he challenges the reasonableness of his sentence and
    appears to claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
    As to the arguments challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness
    of the sentence, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and
    enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo
    review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal
    waivers).
    Further, we decline to consider Golden’s ineffective-assistance claim in this
    direct appeal, see United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 
    449 F.3d 824
    , 826-27 (8th
    Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings,
    where record can be properly developed).
    Finally, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
    
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal
    waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this
    appeal.
    ______________________________
    -2-