United States v. Israel John Patrick Davis, No. 09-1313 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant executed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his appeal rights, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1313 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Israel John Patrick Davis, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: January 28, 2010 Filed: February 3, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Israel John Patrick Davis pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. After granting the government s substantial-assistance motions under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the district court1 sentenced Davis below the mandatory term of life in prison to 204 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 1 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. In a pro se supplemental brief, Davis requests new counsel, and argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the district court proceedings below and in this appeal. Davis entered his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement that contains (1) a waiver of his right to appeal the district court s entry of judgment, except for the right to appeal an upward departure, and (2) a waiver of his right to bring postconviction proceedings, except for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We will enforce the appeal waiver in this appeal, because the record shows that Davis entered his plea voluntarily, with full knowledge of and consent to the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforceability of appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). We reject as meritless Davis s argument that counsel was ineffective in this appeal, because he cannot demonstrate the requisite prejudice from counsel s alleged deficiencies. See United States v. Davis, 508 F.3d 461, 463-64 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant did not establish prejudice where counsel tendered Anders brief, because appellate court reviews record and will order full briefing of any nonfrivolous issues). Davis s claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the proceedings below should be raised (if at all) in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which Davis reserved the right to do. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 82627 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we deny Davis s request for new appellate counsel; we grant counsel s motion to withdraw; and we dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ -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.
