UNITED STATES v. GOLDEN (2018)

[Unpublished]

Michael Golden directly appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court ¹ imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Golden’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.