United States v. Jeffrey Dueker , 357 F. App'x 726 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-2030/2039
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeals from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Jeffrey Dewain Dueker,                   * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 16, 2009
    Filed: December 21, 2009
    ___________
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jeffrey Dueker appeals his sentence of 252 months in prison and ten years of
    supervised release imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to two counts
    of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and one count
    of being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
    and 924(a)(2). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), challenging the sentence as unreasonable. This challenge, however, falls
    within the scope of the appeal waiver contained in Dueker’s plea agreement. Because
    1
    The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    the record shows that Dueker knowingly and voluntarily entered into the waiver and
    the plea agreement, and because we see nothing to suggest that enforcement of the
    waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice, we will enforce the appeal waiver in
    these consolidated appeals. See United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889-92 (8th
    Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court will enforce appeal waiver in plea agreement when appeal
    falls within scope of waiver, both waiver and plea agreement were entered into
    knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of
    justice).
    Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not encompassed by the
    appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss
    the appeals.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-2030, 08-2039

Citation Numbers: 357 F. App'x 726

Judges: Benton, Bowman, Bye, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/21/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024