United States v. Earl Murray ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-2712
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Earl Murray, also known as E
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: April 5, 2021
    Filed: April 12, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Earl Murray received a 108-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to
    conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. See 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
    and 846. As relevant here, the plea agreement waived his right to appeal “any issues
    relating to pretrial motions . . . and the guilty plea.” In an Anders brief, Murray’s
    counsel requests permission to withdraw and suggests that the district court1 should
    have permitted Murray to withdraw his plea. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See
    United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we
    conclude that the waiver in this case is both applicable and enforceable. See United
    States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining when an
    appeal waiver will be enforced).2 We have also independently reviewed the record
    and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel
    permission to withdraw.
    KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.
    Earl Murray appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The
    plea agreement he entered contains an appeal waiver, but Earl Murray asserts that
    he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter the agreement. Because Murray did not
    waive the right to appeal the voluntariness of his plea, see United States v. Haubrich,
    
    744 F.3d 554
    , 558 (8th Cir. 2014) (appeal waiver in plea agreement did not bar
    appeal of denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea because defendant “did not agree
    to waive any appeal challenging the plea’s voluntariness”), the issue he raises is
    properly before us. Nevertheless, a review of the record shows that the district court
    1
    The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    2
    The record demonstrates that Murray knowingly and voluntarily entered into
    the plea agreement and the appeal waiver. See United States v. Gray, 
    528 F.3d 1099
    , 1102 (8th Cir. 2008).
    -2-
    did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and that Murray’s plea was
    knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Green, 
    521 F.3d 929
    , 931 (8th Cir.
    2008). I concur in affirming the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -3-