United States v. Terrance Foy ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-2972
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Terrance Michael Foy
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
    ____________
    Submitted: April 19, 2022
    Filed: April 29, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Terrance Foy appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
    pleaded guilty to drug and gun charges, pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an
    1
    The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa.
    appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), challenging application of the career-
    offender enhancement, and arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
    Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
    and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 
    627 F.3d 702
    , 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal
    waiver); United States v. Andis, 
    333 F.3d 886
    , 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
    (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant
    knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing
    waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice; appeal waivers should not be easily
    voided by courts); see also United States v. Reeves, 
    410 F.3d 1031
    , 1034 (8th Cir.
    2005) (defendant waived right to appeal career offender designation when appeal
    waiver provided that he waived all rights to appeal imposed sentence and that
    Guidelines range was not subject to appeal).
    We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope
    of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-2972

Filed Date: 4/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/29/2022