United States v. Sylvester King , 367 F. App'x 719 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-2226
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Eastern
    v.                                  * District of Missouri.
    *
    Sylvester King,                           * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 3, 2010
    Filed: March 8, 2010
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Sylvester King pleaded guilty to
    distributing and possessing with intent to distribute a mixture containing cocaine base.
    21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). He now challenges the sentence imposed by the
    District Court.1 His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), raising as a potential issue that the District
    Court abused its discretion in determining drug quantity for purposes of calculating
    King's sentence.
    1
    The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    We will dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver included in the written
    plea agreement. The transcript of the plea hearing shows that King knowingly and
    voluntarily entered into the plea agreement after discussing it with his attorney and
    that he understood the consequences of the appeal waiver. The appeal waiver
    encompasses the argument raised on appeal, and enforcing the waiver would not cause
    a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 890–92 (8th Cir.)
    (en banc) (holding that an appeal waiver in a plea agreement will be enforced when
    the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, both the waiver and the plea agreement
    were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement of the waiver would
    not result in a miscarriage of justice), cert. denied, 
    540 U.S. 997
    (2003); United States
    v. Estrada-Bahena, 
    201 F.3d 1070
    , 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing an
    appeal waiver in an Anders case).
    Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we
    affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2226

Citation Numbers: 367 F. App'x 719

Filed Date: 3/8/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023