United States v. Travis Davis , 626 F. App'x 196 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 15-1972
    ___________________________
    United States of America,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    Travis Joe Davis,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph
    ____________
    Submitted: November 26, 2015
    Filed: December 21, 2015
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Travis Davis directly appeals after he pled guilty to aiding and abetting bank
    robbery and the district court1 imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence. His
    1
    The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), challenging Davis’s sentence on substantive and procedural
    grounds. Davis has filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting prosecutorial
    misconduct. More specifically, Davis claims that the prosecutor coached his victims
    and submitted victim impact statements to the district court without first giving him
    an opportunity to review the statements or to object to their content.
    We note that Davis pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing an
    appeal waiver, and upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the appeal waiver
    is enforceable as to counsel’s arguments challenging Davis’s sentence. See United
    States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889-90 (2003) (en banc). We further conclude that Davis’s pro se claim of
    prosecutorial misconduct is not within the scope of the appeal waiver, but that it lacks
    merit, as there is no evidence the victim impact statements were false, and Davis did
    not object to them in the district court. Cf. United States v. White, 
    724 F.2d 714
    , 716-
    17 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Finally, having independently reviewed the record
    pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues
    outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw
    is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-1972

Citation Numbers: 626 F. App'x 196

Judges: Loken, Bowman, Cólloton

Filed Date: 12/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024