United States v. Adrian Weems, No. 16-2801 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. The court would not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal; partial appeal waiver barred challenge to the factual basis for defendant's guilty plea; the district court committed no significant procedural error at sentencing, imposed a substantively reasonable sentence and did not err in imposing certain special supervised release conditions.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2801 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Adrian Lamar Weems lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: April 4, 2017 Filed: April 19, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Adrian Weems pleaded guilty to a drug charge under a written plea agreement containing a partial appeal waiver that applied to his conviction but not to his sentence. The District Court1 sentenced Weems to the statutory minimum, below the calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, and imposed special conditions of supervised release. In this appeal, Weems’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the factual basis for the guilty plea, the reasonableness of the prison term, and special conditions of supervised release. Weems has submitted a pro se filing claiming that his guilty plea was involuntary, challenging aspects of the Guidelines calculations, and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He has also filed three motions for new appointed counsel. To begin, we decline to consider Weems’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed). We further conclude that Weems’s involuntary-plea claim is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move in the District Court to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033–34 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that to the extent a defendant presents an argument to establish that his plea was unknowing or involuntary, “such a claim would not be cognizable on direct appeal where he failed to present it to the district court in the first instance by a motion to withdraw his guilty plea” (citation to quoted case omitted)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1236 (2011). As for counsel’s argument that the factual basis for the guilty plea was not sufficient, we conclude, based in part on Weems’s own statements at his change-ofplea hearing, that the partial appeal waiver is enforceable and applicable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890–92 (8th 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that a “defendant’s representations during the plea-taking carry a strong presumption of verity” (citation to quoted case omitted)). With respect to the challenges to Weems’s sentence, we conclude that the District Court did not commit any significant procedural errors, impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, or abuse its discretion in imposing the special conditions of supervised release. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076–77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 478-79 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that special conditions of supervised release that were objected to at sentencing are reviewed for an abuse of discretion). We also note that any possible errors in the Guidelines calculations would have been harmless because the District Court sentenced Weems to the statutory minimum. Cf. United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing the court’s limited authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We affirm the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Weems’s pending motions. ______________________________ -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.
