United States v. Blake Ruel, No. 22-3302 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; claim of ineffective counsel should be addressed on collateral review. [ March 08, 2023 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3302 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Blake Ruel, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: March 6, 2023 Filed: March 9, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Blake Ruel appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Ruel pleaded guilty to offenses involving drugs and firearms. His counsel moved to withdraw and 1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Ruel moved for new counsel on appeal, stating that he was misled by his counsel during the plea negotiations. As to counsel’s argument, we conclude that Ruel’s sentence was not unreasonable. The court specifically stated that it had considered all of the factors under 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 the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). As to Ruel’s pro se argument that counsel was ineffective during the plea negotiations, Ruel did not move to withdraw his plea as involuntary, and we conclude that his challenge to counsel’s performance would be better addressed on collateral review. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Ruel’s motion for new counsel 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.
