Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's pro se claim that his conviction for brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) is unconstitutional in light of U.S. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) is rejected as the case does not apply because his offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the use-of-force clause of Sec. 924(c)(3)(A); claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be addressed on direct appeal; appeal waiver is valid, enforceable and applicable to the remaining issues raised in the appeal.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2288 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Richard L. Gathercole lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: February 27, 2020 Filed: March 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Richard Gathercole appeals after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery, carjacking, and a firearm offense, and the district court1 imposed a sentence consistent with his 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. binding Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. 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 was unreasonable, and that Gathercole was denied effective assistance of counsel. Gathercole has filed a pro se brief arguing that his firearm conviction--i.e., brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)--is unconstitutional in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidating § 924(c)(3)(B)--the residual clause definition of crime of violence--as unconstitutionally vague). Upon careful review, we conclude that Davis does not apply to Gathercole’s conviction. See Estell v. United States, 924 F.3d 1291, 1293 (8th Cir. 2019) (bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)); see also Kidd v. United States, 929 F.3d 578, 581 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (armed robbery categorically qualifies as crime of violence under use-of-force clause of § 924(c)(3)(A); Davis does not apply where predicate offense qualifies under use-offorce clause). To the extent Gathercole attempts to assert ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address the claim in this direct appeal, see United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal). Finally, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the remaining issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We -2- have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver as to Gathercole’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, affirm in all other respects, and grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
