United States v. Parker Willingham , 365 F. App'x 40 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-2214
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    Parker Willingham,                       *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 5, 2010
    Filed: February 23, 2010
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Parker
    Willingham pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and to defraud the
    United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the collection of tax revenue,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court1 sentenced him to 41 months in
    prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $31,650 in
    restitution. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). Counsel argues that the district court erred
    1
    The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    by using the attempted loss rather than the actual loss to enhance the base offense
    level, that the sentence did not reflect Willingham’s limited participation in the
    conspiracy, and that the sentence is inconsistent with sentences received by similarly
    situated codefendants.
    Upon careful review, we conclude that Willingham knowingly and voluntarily
    entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, that the issues raised on appeal
    fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, and that enforcing the appeal waiver would
    not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889-
    92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating circumstances in which court will enforce appeal
    waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 
    201 F.3d 1070
    , 1071 (8th Cir.
    2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).
    Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver.
    Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant
    counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2214

Citation Numbers: 365 F. App'x 40

Filed Date: 2/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023