UNITED STATES v. MARTIN (2019)

[Unpublished]

In these consolidated cases, Allen Martin directly appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court ¹ imposed after he was charged in two indictments and pled guilty to aggravated identity theft, theft of government funds, and failure to appear. His counsel has moved for leave 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 sentence as substantively unreasonable. Martin has filed a pro se brief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

We first decline to address Martin’s pro se ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing limited circumstances in which ineffective-assistance claims are considered on direct appeal). We further conclude that Martin’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.