United States v. Denise Harris , 581 F. App'x 609 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-1978
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Denise Suzel Harris
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: November 7, 2014
    Filed: November 12, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Denise Harris directly appeals after she pled guilty to conspiracy charges and
    the district court1 sentenced her below the calculated Guidelines range. Her counsel
    1
    The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), acknowledging an
    appeal waiver in Harris’s plea agreement and asserting arguments. Counsel has also
    moved for leave to withdraw. Harris has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging
    her sentence.
    After careful de novo review, we 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, plea agreement and
    waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice
    would result); see also United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010)
    (standard of review). We note that Harris’s statements under oath at the plea hearing
    showed that she entered into both the plea agreement and the appeal waiver
    knowingly and voluntarily. See Nguyen v. United States, 
    114 F.3d 699
    , 703 (8th Cir.
    1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong presumption of
    verity).
    Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal
    waiver. This appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1978

Citation Numbers: 581 F. App'x 609

Judges: Loken, Melloy, Gruender

Filed Date: 11/12/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024