United States v. James Butchee ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-3498
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    James Marione Butchee, also known as Knowledge
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of North Dakota - Fargo
    ____________
    Submitted: August 14, 2019
    Filed: August 22, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    James Butchee appeals after he signed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
    11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, entered a guilty plea, and
    was sentenced by the district court1 in accordance with the plea agreement. In a brief
    filed under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), his counsel acknowledges the
    appeal waiver, and presents Butchee’s view that his base offense level was
    miscalculated. Counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw. In a pro se brief,
    Butchee argues that he was erroneously classified as a career offender, and that
    counsel was ineffective.
    We decline, on direct appeal, to consider any claims of ineffective assistance
    of counsel. See United States v. Hernandez, 
    281 F.3d 746
    , 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (in
    general, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal; such claim
    is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). As to the remaining issues, we enforce
    the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de
    novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis,
    
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if
    appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into
    plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of
    justice).
    Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988),
    we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the District of North Dakota.
    -2-