United States v. Ceneca Johnson, No. 13-3422 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal case and sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and his valid guilty plea foreclosed any challenge to pre-plea, non-jurisdictional issues; surviving claims of prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy were meritless; district court properly concluded defendant was a career offender for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1(a) and did not err in varying upward; special supervised release conditions were appropriate given defendant's criminal history.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3422 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ceneca Romale Johnson, also known as Ceneca Ronele Johnson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: June 17, 2014 Filed: June 20, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ceneca Johnson appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Johnson s counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the court abused its discretion by denying Johnson s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, by imposing an unreasonable sentence, and by imposing a condition of supervised release requiring Johnson to submit to warrantless searches. Johnson joins in some of these arguments in his pro se brief, and adds arguments that he suffered prosecutorial misconduct and violations of double jeopardy, and the court miscalculated his Guidelines range. He moves for new counsel. The foregoing arguments fail. First, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson s motion, filed before sentencing, to withdraw his guilty plea. We agree with the court that Johnson failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he had a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Yell, 18 F.3d 581, 582 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review); United States v. Bahena, 223 F.3d 797, 806-07 (8th Cir. 2000). Johnson s valid guilty plea forecloses any challenge in this appeal to pre-plea, non-jurisdictional issues, and we conclude that any surviving claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy are meritless and do not require discussion. See United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569, 575 (1989); United States v. White, 724 F.2d 714, 716-17 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). As to Johnson s sentence, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentences), the district court properly determined that Johnson was a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a); United States v. Clarke, 564 F.3d 949, 955 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review), and did not impose an unreasonable sentence by varying upward after providing multiple reasons for doing so based on specified sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. White Twin, 682 F.3d 773, 778 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Gatewood, 438 F.3d 894, 896 (8th Cir. 2006). The court also did not abuse its discretion by imposing the special -2- supervised-release condition, in light of Johnson s criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(3); United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 478-79 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we deny Johnson s pro se motion for new counsel, and we affirm. We also grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Johnson about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -3-
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.
