United States v. Rafael Rosales-Martinez , 256 F. App'x 875 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1239
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    Rafael Rosales-Martinez,                *
    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 7, 2007
    Filed: December 11, 2007
    ___________
    Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Rafael Rosales-Martinez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry following removal,
    in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2), and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in
    violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    . The district court1 sentenced him as a career offender
    to 170 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Rosales-
    Martinez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), which questions whether the district court erred in
    sentencing Rosales-Martinez as a career offender.
    1
    The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    The plea agreement, however, contains a waiver of Rosales-Martinez’s right to
    appeal his sentence, and we will enforce that appeal waiver here. The record reflects
    that Rosales-Martinez understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea
    agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the
    waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    ,
    889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss
    appeal where both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and
    voluntarily, appeal falls within scope of waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would
    result); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 
    201 F.3d 1070
    , 1071 (8th Cir. 2000)
    (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).
    Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), we
    find that there are no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1239

Citation Numbers: 256 F. App'x 875

Judges: Bye, Riley, Melloy

Filed Date: 12/11/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024