United States v. Ray Anthony James, No. 15-1652 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Claims of ineffective assistance would not be considered on direct appeal; the appeal waiver precludes consideration of all of the other issues raised in the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1652 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ray Anthony James, also known as Anthony Paul Morgan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: August 21, 2015 Filed: August 26, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ray James, who entered into a written plea agreement and pleaded guilty to an immigration offense, appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court.1 His 1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that James’s sentence is unreasonable. James has moved for appointment of new counsel and has filed a pro se brief asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We decline to consider James’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2013) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel . . . are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings.” (citation to quoted case omitted)). As to all other issues raised, we enforce the appeal waiver in James’s written plea agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. We also deny James’s motion for appointment of new counsel. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
