United States of America v. Ralph Ruffin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2272
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ralph Ruffin
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: June 15, 2026
Filed: June 18, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ralph Ruffin appeals after he pled guilty to drug and firearm charges pursuant
to a written plea agreement and the district court1 imposed an above-Guidelines-range
1The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the court erred by failing to explain Ruffin’s
sentence.
After review, we first determine that the appeal is outside the scope of the
appeal waiver in the written plea agreement. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Next, we reject Ruffin’s challenge to
the district court’s explanation of the sentence, as the court stated it imposed the
sentence after carefully considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and discussed the
various factors it balanced to arrive at the sentence imposed, including mitigating
factors, the egregious circumstances of the offense, and the need to protect the public,
among others. See United States v. Carson, 924 F.3d 467, 470-71 (8th Cir. 2019)
(standard of review); United States v. Williams, 171 F.4th 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 2026).
In addition, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence, as 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). Finally, we decline to
consider Ruffin’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v.
Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --