United States v. William Brown
683 F. App'x 541
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- William Earl Brown pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence.
- Brown was sentenced after pleading guilty in February 2016 to a lesser-included offense: conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine.
- Brown directly appealed his sentence; counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal and argued the sentence was unreasonable. Brown filed pro se supplemental briefs and sought new counsel.
- Brown raised claims that his sentence was unreasonable, that his poor health was inadequately considered, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by using judicial fact-finding (preponderance standard) to calculate drug quantity.
- The panel independently reviewed the record under Penson and found no nonfrivolous issues outside the waiver; it also identified and corrected a clerical error in the written judgment to reflect the February 2016 plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appeal waiver on claim sentence is unreasonable | Brown: sentence unreasonable | Government: waiver is valid and bars the claim | Waiver enforced; claim barred (knowing, voluntary, within scope, no miscarriage of justice) |
| Pro se claim that sentence failed to account for poor health | Brown: sentence did not adequately consider poor health | Government: appeal waiver bars the claim | Waiver bars consideration of this claim |
| Ineffective-assistance of counsel claims raised pro se | Brown: counsel ineffective | Government: such claims are not suitable for direct appeal | Court declined to address on direct appeal; better raised collateral proceedings |
| Sixth Amendment challenge to judicial fact-finding of drug quantity | Brown: sentencing used preponderance and increased quantity beyond plea | Government: Brown consented in plea to judicial fact-finding by preponderance; argument fits waiver exception for illegal sentence but fails | Argument rejected—consent in plea and precedents permit judicial factfinding under preponderance for sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (standards for enforcing plea appeal waivers)
- United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims generally litigated collateral proceedings)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (Sixth Amendment and judicial factfinding principles)
- United States v. Bledsoe, 445 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006) (consent to judicial factfinding under preponderance for sentencing)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (appellate courts’ independent review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- United States v. James, 792 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2015) (resolving conflicts between oral sentence and written judgment)