United States v. Demetrius Smith ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3325
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Demetrius Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 17, 2023
Filed: May 23, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Demetrius Smith appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pled guilty to several counts of Hobbs Act robbery and a count
1
The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court committed procedural error
at sentencing and imposed an unreasonable sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(enforcing appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly
and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would
not result in miscarriage of justice).
Further, having independently reviewed the record under 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 based on the appeal waiver, and
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-