United States v. Princton Sims, No. 18-3266 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Colloton, Erickson, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Sims, as the court properly considered the factors and imposed the statutory minimum sentence. Ineffective assistance claims will not be addressed on direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3266 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Princton Sims, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: June 17, 2019 Filed: June 26, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Princton Sims appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. His counsel 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 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, and that former counsel was ineffective in failing to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Sims. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Further, the court imposed the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013). We decline to address Sims’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
