United States v. Dale Roberson, No. 21-2125 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The sentencing issue defendant attempts to present falls with the scope of his valid, enforceable appeal waiver, and the appeal is dismissed; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered on direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2125 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Dale Roberson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln1 ____________ Submitted: November 4, 2021 Filed: November 18, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dale Roberson received a 180-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 841(b)(1)(A), 846. As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for, as relevant here, ineffective assistance of counsel. In an Anders brief, Roberson’s counsel suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief alleges that counsel was ineffective. The appeal waiver, which is enforceable, covers the sentencing issue. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an 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). And we decline to consider the ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, grant counsel permission to withdraw, and deny the pending pro se motion as moot. ______________________________ -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.
