United States v. Lamont Norris ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3376
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lamont Ladarryl Norris
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: May 3, 2023
Filed: May 8, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lamont Ladarryl Norris appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the
district court1 imposed a sentence of 36 months in prison, followed by four years of
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
dismisses the appeal based on the appeal waiver.
Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) in which he acknowledges the appeal waiver in
Norris’s plea agreement and challenges the validity of the indictment. Norris has
filed a motion to strike the Anders brief, and in a pro se brief, asserts the government
and the district court breached the plea agreement in relation to the imposition of a
term of supervised release. Also before the court is the motion of non-party James
Murray seeking leave to file an amicus curiae brief.
The district court imposed a sentence consistent with Norris’s binding Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. This court concludes that
Norris’s claim that the government breached the plea agreement lacks merit, as the
government’s conduct was consistent with terms of the agreement that indicated a
statutory mandatory term of supervised release would be imposed. See United
States v. Raifsnider, 663 F.3d 1004, 1009 (8th Cir. 2011) (issues concerning the
interpretation and enforcement of a plea agreement are reviewed de novo; in
determining whether plea agreement has been breached, this court applies general
contract principles). The appeal waiver is enforceable as to the remaining claims
because the arguments fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, the record shows
that Norris entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and
voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver.
See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review);
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 waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would
not result in miscarriage of justice).
-2-
This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal
waiver.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The motion to strike the Anders
brief is denied. The motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is denied.
The appeal is dismissed.
______________________________
-3-