United States of America v. Reginald L. Ford

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3684
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Reginald L. Ford
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: March 29, 2016
Filed: April 1, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Reginald Ford directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after1
he pled guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ford’s sentence is unreasonable and
that Ford received ineffective assistance of counsel. Ford has filed a supplemental
brief, arguing that the district court misapplied the career-offender provisions of the
Guidelines, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). First, we
decline to reach the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States
v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance
claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be
properly developed). Second, as to the remaining arguments, we enforce the appeal
waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo
review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant
knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing
waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Finally, having independently
reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --