United States of America v. Cornelius D. Myers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1607
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cornelius D. Myers
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: August 14, 2024
Filed: August 19, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cornelius Myers appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 12 months of supervised release. His
1The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief questioning whether Myers
received timely notice of one violation. Myers has filed a pro se brief asserting he did
not receive a timely hearing post-arrest, and challenging the district court’s findings
that he violated terms of his supervision as well as his counsel’s effectiveness.
We conclude that the initial appearance and preliminary hearing were
conducted in a timely manner, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(1) (initial appearance must
occur without unnecessary delay), (b)(1)(A) (preliminary hearing must be conducted
promptly); and that Myers received written notification of his alleged violations prior
to the revocation hearing, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(A) (requiring written notice
of violations prior to revocation); see also United States v. Burrage, 951 F.3d 913,
917 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review).
Further, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Myers
violated conditions of his supervised release, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); and decline to address Myers’s
ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, see United States v. Ramirez-
Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding ineffective-assistance
claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --