United States v. Buck Hansbrough, No. 17-3032 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The court would not consider defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal; defendant executed a valid, applicable and enforceable appeal waiver and his challenges to his sentence are barred by the waiver; the appeal is dismissed. [ June 11, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3032 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Buck Richard Hansbrough lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: June 6, 2018 Filed: June 12, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Buck Hansbrough directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court1 1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. imposed a prison term below the Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which does not acknowledge the appeal waiver, and argues that the district court committed procedural sentencing errors and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. In a pro se brief, Hansbrough also argues that the district court committed procedural sentencing errors and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence, and additionally asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. To begin, we decline to consider Hansbrough’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 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). As to the arguments challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, 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.
