United States v. Carlton Samuels, Jr., No. 16-2525 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; application of a four-level increase under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was supported by the record; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered in this direct appeal. [ January 03, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2525 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Carlton E. Samuels, Jr., lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 22, 2016 Filed: January 4, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, Carlton Samuels appeals the district court’s1 within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence, and that Samuels received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to the 4-level enhancement for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Samuels has filed a motion making the same ineffective-assistance argument and a letter arguing that police did not have a proper search warrant when they discovered the firearm. We conclude that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. A sentence within the advisory guideline range is presumed reasonable, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014), and the court imposed the sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). To the extent Samuels is attempting to assert a Fourth Amendment claim on appeal, his valid guilty plea waived such a claim. See United States v. Arellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000). The district court’s application of a four-level increase under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)) was supported by the evidence. We deny the ineffective-assistance claim, as such claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Samuels’s motion. ______________________________ -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.
