United States v. Garland Lightfoot, No. 18-3501 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a downward variance; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered on direct appeal. [ July 29, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3501 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Garland Lightfoot lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: July 25, 2019 Filed: July 30, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Garland Lightfoot directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has moved for 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court abused its discretion in denying a downward variance. Lightfoot has filed a pro se brief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a downward variance, as the court considered Lightfoot’s arguments and reasonably concluded that a variance was not warranted. See United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 772-73 (8th Cir. 2010) (denial of downward variance was substantively reasonable where district court considered defendant’s arguments and reasonably exercised its discretion). Next, we decline to address Lightfoot’s pro se ineffectiveassistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claim is generally not cognizable on direct appeal; instead, such claim is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we 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.
