United States v. Luis Garcia, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-3331 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Luis Garcia, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________

Submitted: May 17, 2021 Filed: May 28, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Luis Garcia, Jr., appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the district court1 imposed an 80-month prison sentence. His counsel has moved for

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, and relaying that Garcia contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Before sentencing, the parties jointly recommended an 80-month prison term, and defense counsel argued in favor of the recommendation at the sentencing hearing. Because the court imposed the recommended sentence, we conclude Garcia’s reasonableness challenge is foreclosed. See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002) (“On appeal, [defendant] cannot complain that the district court gave him exactly what his lawyer asked.”). Further, we defer any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for collateral proceedings. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007) (this court ordinarily defers ineffective- assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

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

-2-