United States v. Joshua Beardemphl , 700 F. App'x 560 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-1112
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Joshua Lee Beardemphl
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
    ____________
    Submitted: October 2, 2017
    Filed: November 7, 2017
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Joshua Beardemphl directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm charge,
    pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court1
    1
    The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    sentenced him as an armed career criminal. His counsel has moved for leave to
    withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967),
    acknowledging the appeal waiver, but arguing that Beardemphl’s sentence is illegal
    because he should not have been classified as an armed career criminal, and without
    such a classification, his sentence would be above the statutory maximum for his
    conviction. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the
    appeal waiver.
    We conclude that the sentence is not illegal because Beardemphl was properly
    classified as an armed career criminal. See United States v. Lindsey, 
    827 F.3d 733
    (8th Cir. 2016) (Minnesota conviction for second-degree assault qualifies as violent
    felony under armed career criminal act). We further conclude that the appeal waiver
    is valid, applicable, and 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 outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant
    counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion, and dismiss this
    appeal.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1112

Citation Numbers: 700 F. App'x 560

Filed Date: 11/7/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023