United States v. Ernest Britten ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
                                 For the Eighth Circuit
                             ___________________________
    
                                     No. 16-2087
                             ___________________________
    
                                  United States of America
    
                             lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    
                                                v.
    
                                    Ernest Andrew Britten
    
                           lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                           ____________
    
                         Appeal from United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
                                      ____________
    
                               Submitted: November 28, 2016
                                 Filed: December 1, 2016
                                       [Unpublished]
                                      ____________
    
    Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________
    
    PER CURIAM.
    
           Ernest Britten appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded
    guilty to a child-pornography charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed
    a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    
          1
          The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
           Britten pleaded guilty after entering into a written plea agreement containing
    an appeal waiver. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. 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
    , 890-92 (8th
    Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we
    have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988),
    and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
    motion and dismiss this appeal.
                           ______________________________
    
    
    
    
                                             -2-