United States v. Elliott M. Sumlin , 190 F. App'x 527 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-2882
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Elliott M. Sumlin,                       *
    *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: August 1, 2006
    Filed: August 3, 2006
    ___________
    Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Elliott M. Sumlin appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
    pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. His counsel has filed a brief
    under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that the district court abused
    its discretion by imposing a 135-month sentence and plainly erred under United States
    v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), by applying the Guidelines as mandatory.
    1
    The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Sumlin’s plea agreement: the
    plea colloquy reflects that Sumlin understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of
    the plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the
    waiver; and no injustice would result. 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, both plea agreement and waiver were entered
    into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one
    important way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing
    and voluntary is to properly question defendant about decision to enter agreement and
    to waive right to appeal). The waiver also covered any issues under Booker. See
    United States v. Fogg, 
    409 F.3d 1022
    , 1025 (8th Cir. 2005) (unless expressly reserved,
    right to appellate relief under Booker is among rights waived by valid appeal waiver,
    even if parties did not anticipate Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
    (2004), or
    Booker).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2882

Citation Numbers: 190 F. App'x 527

Judges: Smith, Magill, Benton

Filed Date: 8/3/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024