United States of America v. Ramien Collins, also known as Rambo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3120
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ramien Collins, also known as Rambo
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: May 4, 2023
Filed: May 15, 2023
[Published]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ramien Collins received a 262-month prison sentence after a jury found him
guilty of selling methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We
appointed counsel, who has attempted to file an Anders brief and asked to withdraw.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967) (explaining the duties of
appointed counsel when there are no colorable claims).

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
We have determined that we cannot decide the appeal until counsel files a
brief that satisfies Anders’s requirements. See id. The Supreme Court has been clear
that an “attorney must be zealous and must resolve all doubts and ambiguous legal
questions in favor of his or her client.” McCoy v. Ct. of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486
U.S. 429, 444 (1988).
Yet this brief appears to make inferences against Collins. For example, it
argues that “he waived his right to make a sufficiency of the evidence argument on
appeal” by failing to make a motion when prompted. It turns out, however, that trial
counsel agreed that he did not “want to waive any appeal” when questioned by the
district court. It similarly concedes that Collins’s prior drug conviction was
admissible under Rule 404(b), even though the government failed to say why the
conviction was relevant to “knowledge” or “intent” in this case. Fed. R. Evid.
404(b)(2); see United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 390 (8th Cir. 2015) (requiring
the government to explain how the conviction speaks to something other than
propensity). But see United States v. Monds, 945 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2019)
(interpreting Turner narrowly).
We take no position on whether these arguments have merit. See United
States v. Cline, 27 F.4th 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “[c]ounsel is not
required to advocate frivolous positions”). Indeed, it is hard to even know unless
counsel frames the issues in their best light. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259,
284 (2000) (recognizing that advocating against a client may “subtly undermine the
independence and thoroughness” of our review). In doing so, counsel might
“discover previously unrecognized aspects of the law,” which can benefit both the
client and the court tasked with evaluating any issues raised. McCoy, 486 U.S. at
442.
Counsel can also explain why a potential issue lacks merit. See Cline, 27
F.4th at 620. But nothing in Cline relaxed the duty to “resolve all doubts” in favor
of one’s client first. McCoy, 486 U.S. at 444. Then, and only then, can appointed
counsel explain why the appeal is frivolous.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
The motion to withdraw is held in abeyance pending the filing of a compliant
brief.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --