United States v. Allen Martin, No. 18-1928 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The court would not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1928 No. 18-1929 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Allen Frank Martin lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: June 21, 2019 Filed: June 28, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated cases, Allen Martin directly appeals the withinGuidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he was charged in two indictments and pled guilty to aggravated identity theft, theft of government funds, and failure to appear. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Martin has filed a pro se brief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. We first decline to address Martin’s pro se ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing limited circumstances in which ineffective-assistance claims are considered on direct appeal). We further conclude that Martin’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
