United States v. Kenneth Goff, No. 17-1469 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was substantively reasonable; court would not consider claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1469 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kenneth Goff lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: September 27, 2017 Filed: October 25, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kenneth Goff directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Goff has filed a pro se brief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and has also filed a motion for new counsel. As to the ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to consider it 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 conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Goff’s motion, and 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.
