UNITED STATES v. LIGHTFOOT (2019)

[Unpublished]

Garland Lightfoot directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the district court ¹ imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. 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), suggesting that the district court abused its discretion in denying a downward variance. Lightfoot has filed a pro se brief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a downward variance, as the court considered Lightfoot’s arguments and reasonably concluded that a variance was not warranted. See United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir. 2010) (denial of downward variance was substantively reasonable where district court considered defendant’s arguments and reasonably exercised its discretion). Next, we decline to address Lightfoot’s pro se ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claim is generally not cognizable on direct appeal; instead, such claim is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). 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 for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.