United States v. James E. Childress (8th Cir. 2001)

Federal Circuits, 8th Cir. (June 04, 2001)

Docket number: 00-1835
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/18504286
Id. vLex: VLEX-18504286

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1835

United States of America, Appellee, v. James E. Childress, Appellant.

Submitted: May 30, 2001 Filed: June 4, 2001

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found James E. Childress guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court1 sentenced him to concurrent terms of 235 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release for the drug offense and 120 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release for the firearm offense. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Childress has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Counsel raises three claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and argues that the court erred in allowing evidence of a drug transaction committed by ChildressÂ’s co-conspirators after he had been arrested and incarcerated.

First, Childress§ 2255 proceedings, not in this direct appeal. See United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995). Second, the rationale for admitting the challenged evidence that the conspiracy did not end upon ChildressÂ’s arrest and incarcerationwas correct. See United States v. Bascope-Zurita, 68 F.3d 1057, 1061 (8th Cir. 1995) (conspiracy continues after one co-conspirator is arrested if other co-conspiratorsÂ’ illegal activities continue thereafter), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1062 (1996).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counselÂ’s motion to withdraw. We deny ChildressÂ’s motion for appointment of new appellate counsel.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

[1] The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Other documents:
velsicol chemical corporation plaintiff-appellant v monsanto company defendant-appellee. 579 f.2d 1038 7th cir 1978 | Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218 (1929) | Shaw (W. Thomas) v. Nvf Company, Employees' Pension Plan of Nvf Company, Pension Committee of Employees' Pension Plan of Nvf Company, 877 F.2d 57 (3r... | la biblioteca de alejandría virtual | Endesa denuncia el control absoluto de la Caixa sobre Gas Natural y Repsol | Verordening EG nr 2710/1999 van de Commissie van 20 december 1999 tot vaststelling van de voor het eerste halfjaar van 2000 be... | orden de 1 de diciembre de 1992 del consejero de educación universidades e investigación por la que se autoriza... | Desideratum | 11 inmigrantes escapan de la comisaría de algeciras | jesus garcia delgado petitioner-appellee v gail lewis deputy warden attorney general of the state of california res... | Cedula de Notificacion D./D Inmaculada Santos Perez Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de lo Social Numero 1 de Palma de Mallorca Hago Saber Que en el procedimiento...