Message
×
loading..

United States v. Cedric Easter , 689 F. App'x 465 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 16-3605
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Cedric Easter
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
    ____________
    Submitted: May 30,2017
    Filed: June 2, 2017
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Cedric Easter pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
    conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, and now appeals the district court’s1
    1
    The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Arkansas.
    sentence of 240 months in prison. Easter’s counsel moved to withdraw and submitted
    a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that the evidence at
    sentencing was insufficient to support the sentence; the district court erred in relying
    on inconsistent testimony and unsubstantiated facts; and the sentence is substantively
    unreasonable. Easter filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the district court
    lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea and impose sentence because the sentencing
    penalty provision, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), is ambiguous.
    The issue raised in Easter’s pro se brief was not raised in the district court and
    is foreclosed by his guilty plea. A guilty plea forecloses all claims, even those labeled
    “jurisdictional,” except claims that, “on the face of the record the court had no power
    to enter the conviction or impose the sentence.” United States v. Vaughan, 
    13 F.3d 1186
    , 1188 (8th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Here, the district court obviously had
    power to accept the guilty plea and enter the conviction. Any challenge to application
    of the federal sentencing statutes then had to be raised at sentencing.
    We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the
    record demonstrates that Easter entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver
    knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 
    114 F.3d 699
    , 703 (8th Cir.
    1997); the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice
    would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704
    (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 890-92 (8th
    Cir. 2003) (en banc). 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 waiver.
    Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-3605

Citation Numbers: 689 F. App'x 465

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Benton

Filed Date: 6/2/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024