United States v. Justin Munson, No. 17-2419 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court had jurisdiction over the charge; court would not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; challenge to voluntariness of defendant's guilty plea was not cognizable as he did not move to withdraw the plea; evidentiary issue was waived by defendant's guilty plea; challenge to base offense level was withdrawn and was, therefore, waived; within-Guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2419 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Justin Charles Munson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: January 30, 2018 Filed: February 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Justin Munson directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture 1 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. methamphetamine. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Munson has filed a pro se brief arguing that: the district court lacked jurisdiction; he received ineffective assistance of counsel; his plea was unknowing or involuntary; the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity supporting his base offense level; and there was no evidence proving the manufacturing element of the crime. To begin, we conclude that there is no merit to Munson’s contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (district courts have original jurisdiction of all offenses against laws of United States); United States v. White Horse, 316 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction in every federal criminal prosecution comes from § 3231). Next, we decline to consider Munson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed). We also conclude that Munson’s assertion that his guilty plea was unknowing or involuntary 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) (claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to withdraw guilty plea). We further conclude that his evidentiary argument was waived by his valid guilty plea and, in any event, is contradicted by his statements at the plea hearing. See United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (by entering valid guilty plea, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects or errors); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). -2- As to the sentencing arguments, we first conclude that Munson waived his challenge to his base offense level by withdrawing his relevant objections to the presentence report. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2016) (where defendant withdrew objection to sentencing enhancement in district court, claim of error on appeal was waived). We also 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); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
