USA v. Cody Cannon, No. 06-2462 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. District court lacked authority to sentence below the 10-year statutory minimum. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised in proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-2462 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Cody John Cannon, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 6, 2007 Filed: December 20, 2007 ___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Cody John Cannon pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison, and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the following reasons, we affirm. 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The district court lacked authority to sentence Cannon below the 10-year statutory minimum. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Further, Cannon must pursue any ineffective-assistance claims in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
