United States v. Guillermo Villanueva-Garcia , 413 F. App'x 934 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2815
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                * District of Minnesota.
    *
    Guillermo Villanueva-Garcia,            * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 21, 2011
    Filed: March 24, 2011
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Guillermo Villanueva-Garcia (Garcia) pled guilty to a drug offense pursuant to
    a plea agreement in which he waived all rights to appeal his sentence if the court
    sentenced him to no more than 60 months in prison, the statutory mandatory
    minimum. The district court1 sentenced him to 60 months in prison, and he appeals.
    Appellate counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), challenging the length of the sentence. After careful
    1
    The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge, District of
    Minnesota.
    review, this court will enforce the appeal waiver. 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 it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were
    entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result).
    The record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness; the appeal waiver
    applies because Garcia was sentenced to no more than 60 months; and no miscarriage
    of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. McIntosh, 
    492 F.3d 956
    , 960 (8th Cir. 2007) (appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary when it was
    included in plea agreement, court questioned defendant about his understanding of
    waiver, and defendant did not argue on appeal that waiver was unknowing or
    involuntary). An independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver.
    Accordingly, this court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismisses this
    appeal.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2815

Citation Numbers: 413 F. App'x 934

Judges: Melloy, Gruender, Benton

Filed Date: 3/24/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024