United States v. Matthew Fell ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-2006
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Matthew David Fell
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
    ____________
    Submitted: December 30, 2014
    Filed: January 6, 2015
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Matthew Fell appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled
    guilty to making false threats. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Fell has filed a pro
    se brief.
    The written plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, which this court will
    enforce. See United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of
    review). By its terms, the appeal waiver encompasses all challenges raised in a direct
    appeal. After careful review of the plea transcript in this case, this court is satisfied
    that Fell entered into both the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and
    voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver in
    these circumstances. See Nguyen v. United States, 
    114 F.3d 699
    , 703 (8th Cir. 1997)
    (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity)
    and United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court
    should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of
    waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and
    no miscarriage of justice would result). Independent review of the record under
    Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issue outside the
    scope of the appeal waiver.
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-2006

Judges: Gruender, Benton, Kelly

Filed Date: 1/6/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024