United States v. Kristi Weaver ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-2645
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Kristi Weaver
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
    ____________
    Submitted: March 18, 2021
    Filed: March 23, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Kristi Weaver pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a
    drug-trafficking crime, 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A). As part of her plea agreement, she
    waived her right to appeal unless, as relevant here, her sentence exceeded the
    statutory maximum. The district court1 imposed a total sentence of 181 months in
    prison, which included 121 months on the drug count and 60 months on the firearm
    count. Neither sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A); 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(A). In an Anders brief, Weaver’s counsel
    discusses the appeal waiver and the sentence, as well as requests permission to
    withdraw. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    Upon careful review, we conclude that the waiver is both enforceable and
    applicable. See United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing
    this issue de novo); United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en
    banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within
    the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the
    plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a
    miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record and
    conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to
    withdraw.2
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    2
    We continue to remind counsel that “Anders briefing must be done as an
    advocate” on behalf of the defendant, not the government. Evans v. Clarke, 
    868 F.2d 267
    , 268 (8th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Robinson v.
    Black, 
    812 F.2d 1084
    , 1086 (8th Cir. 1987).
    -2-