United States v. Antone Costa ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-2411
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Antone Costa
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
    ____________
    Submitted: October 28, 2022
    Filed: November 2, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Antone Costa directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after
    he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and related firearm charge pursuant to a written
    1
    The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Western District of Arkansas.
    plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), in which he challenges the reasonableness
    of the sentence, but does not seek leave to withdraw.
    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). Our review of the record demonstrates that Costa entered into the
    plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the
    sentence falls within the scope of the waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would
    result from enforcing the waiver. See 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). We have
    also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988),
    and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.
    ______________________________
    -2-