United States v. Joseph Sims, No. 19-2322 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. Court would not consider ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; Rehaif argument rejected based on defendant's admissions at sentencing; as to defendant's claim that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, the court enforces the appeal waiver in defendant's guilty plea.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2322 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Joseph M. Sims lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: February 13, 2020 Filed: February 27, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Sims appeals after he pleaded guilty--pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement containing an appeal waiver--to a felon-in-possession offense, and the district court1 imposed a prison term within the agreed-upon range. On appeal, Sims’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, and challenging the substantive reasonableness of Sims’s prison term. In pro se briefs, Sims asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his conviction is invalid under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). We decline, at this time, to address Sims’s ineffective-assistance claims. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (2002) (in general, ineffectiveassistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal; such claim is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). And we conclude that the district court did not plainly err under Rehaif given Sims’s prior conviction for unlawful use of a firearm by a felon and his admission at the sentencing hearing that he “knew [he] should not have had that gun because [he did] not have the legal right to possess a firearm.” See United States v. Williams, 776 F. App’x 387, 388 (8th Cir. 2019). As to the substantiveunreasonableness issue, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court reviews de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
