United States v. Antoine Williams, No. 13-3227 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Court would not consider ineffective-assistance of counsel arguments in this direct appeal; defendant's remaining issues were within the scope of his appeal waiver, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3227 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Antoine Williams, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: June 2, 2014 Filed: June 5, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antoine Williams appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the appeal waiver in Williams s plea agreement should not be enforced, and that the district court erred in denying a downward-variance motion and recommending that Williams s sentence run consecutively to sentences imposed in his pending state criminal cases. Williams has filed a pro se brief challenging his sentence and arguing that his counsel was ineffective. We decline to consider Williams s ineffective-assistance arguments on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007). As to the remaining arguments asserted in this appeal, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we decline to consider Williams s ineffective-assistance arguments on direct appeal, we dismiss this appeal based upon the appeal waiver in Williams s plea agreement, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
