United States v. Brandon Cuddihe ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-2054
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Brandon David Cuddihe
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
    ____________
    Submitted: January 28, 2020
    Filed: February 13, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Brandon Cuddihe appeals after he pleaded guilty to child pornography offenses
    and the district court1 imposed a below-Guidelines prison term. His counsel has
    moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that Cuddihe’s prison term is substantively unreasonable but
    that any review is foreclosed by the appeal waiver in the written plea agreement.
    Cuddihe has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
    After careful review, we decline to enforce the appeal waiver, as the record is
    insufficient to establish that Cuddihe knowingly and voluntarily entered into it. See
    United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 890–91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also
    United States v. Boneshirt, 
    662 F.3d 509
    , 515–16 (8th Cir. 2011).2 Nevertheless, we
    conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence.
    See United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
    (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 
    829 F.3d 1027
    , 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (if defendant was sentenced below Guidelines range,
    it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward
    still further). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
    
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
    grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    2
    In light of our ultimate disposition, we need not decide whether counsel’s brief
    arguing to the contrary was inadequate under Anders. See Evans v. Clarke, 
    868 F.2d 267
    , 268–69 (8th Cir. 1989).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-2054

Filed Date: 2/13/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/13/2020