From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Ross

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Oct 29, 2007
252 F. App'x 122 (8th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-2505.

Submitted: October 24, 2007.

Filed: October 29, 2007.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Jeremiah J. Morgan, R. Benjamin Winfrey, Bryan Cave L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Joseph M. Marquez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.


[UNPUBLISHED]


Shawn M. Ross appeals the 70-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture at least 35 grams but less than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. On appeal, Ross's counsel has moved to with draw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Ross was denied effective assistance of counsel.

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

We adhere to the general rule that Ross must raise his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record can be properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Ross

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Oct 29, 2007
252 F. App'x 122 (8th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

U.S. v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appelle, v. Shawn M. ROSS, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Oct 29, 2007

Citations

252 F. App'x 122 (8th Cir. 2007)