United States v. Joel John Virtue, 672 F. App'x 626

Joel Virtue pleaded guilty to bank fraud and was sentenced below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by the district court.
Defense counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief challenging sentence reasonableness; the court ordered a renewed Anders brief to comply with circuit precedent.
Virtue filed a pro se brief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, actual innocence, entitlement to a substantial-assistance downward departure, and sentencing disparity with co‑conspirators; he also sought return of certain files.
The government declined to file a substantial-assistance motion; the plea agreement did not obligate such a motion.
The district court considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including sentencing disparity, and varied downward from the Guidelines.
The Eighth Circuit conducted an independent Penson review, found no nonfrivolous issues, denied the return-of-files request, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of sentence	Virtue argues sentence is disproportionate to co‑conspirators and requests further reduction	District court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and already varied downward	Affirmed: sentence not substantively unreasonable; below-Guidelines variance was appropriate
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Virtue alleges counsel provided ineffective assistance	Government argues such claims are premature on direct appeal	Declined to consider on direct appeal; better raised in collateral proceedings
Actual innocence	Virtue asserts he is innocent of the offense	Government points to Virtue’s admissions at plea hearing	Rejected: plea colloquy admissions carry strong presumption of verity
Substantial-assistance motion	Virtue contends government should have moved for downward departure	Government has discretion and no contractual obligation to move absent agreement	Rejected: government acted within discretion; no duty to move absent plea agreement
Return of files under Rule 41(g)	Virtue requests return of files by appellate order	Government/defendant contends this is not proper on direct appeal	Denied: improper subject for direct appeal; follow Rule 41(g) procedure

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to file brief identifying any nonfrivolous issues when seeking to withdraw after a guilty plea)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate courts must independently review record when counsel seeks to withdraw)
Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (discusses standards for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
McCauley v. United States, 715 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting it is unlikely a court abused its discretion when it already varied below Guidelines)
Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s plea colloquy statements carry strong presumption of truth)
Wolf v. United States, 270 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 2001) (government has no duty to move for substantial-assistance departure absent promise in plea agreement)
Ramirez-Hernandez v. United States, 449 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims generally resolved in collateral proceedings)
Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267 (8th Cir. 1989) (procedural requirements for Anders briefs)
Robinson v. Black, 812 F.2d 1084 (8th Cir. 1987) (procedural guidance on counsel withdrawal and Anders compliance)