United States v. Corday Thoma, No. 11-1857 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable; court would not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1857 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Corday D. Thomas, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 22, 2011 Filed: October 4, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Corday Thomas pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 72 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred by not varying downward and by imposing a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In a pro se brief, Thomas argues that counsel was ineffective. 1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable: the record reflects that the district court carefully considered the section 3553(a) factors, explained why it chose not to vary downward, and imposed a sentence at the low end of the undisputed Guidelines range. See United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004, 1010 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). We decline to review Thomas s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
