United States v. Joshua Blaine

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________

No. 15-3636
___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joshua Jay Blaine

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________

Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
____________

Submitted: August 9, 2016
Filed: August 15, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Blaine directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of firearms, and the district court1 sentenced him to a

1
The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
within-Guidelines-range term of imprisonment. His counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting an ineffective-assistance claim and arguing that the district court committed
procedural sentencing errors and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Mr. Blaine has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he asserts arguments
apparently related to a civil action he has filed.

To begin, we decline to address 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). As to counsel’s assertions of
procedural sentencing errors, we find no plain error. See United States v. Krzyzaniak,
702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for plain error when defendant did
not object at sentencing to adequacy of explanation of sentence); see also United
States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016) (approving consideration of
defendant’s failure to accept responsibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)); United States
v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (in determining whether district
court has considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, this court reviews entire sentencing
record, not merely district court’s statements at hearing). We also conclude that the
court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Callaway,
762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may
be presumed reasonable). We further note that Mr. Blaine’s pro se arguments
apparently related to a civil action are not cognizable in this direct criminal appeal.

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________

-2-