United States v. Billy Garrison

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3984
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Billy B. Garrison
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: July 02, 2013
Filed: July 15, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Billy Garrison pleaded guilty to drug, firearm, and money-laundering charges.
The district court1 imposed a total sentence of 240 months in prison and 5 years of
1
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
supervised release, in accordance with a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
On appeal, Garrison’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), and Garrison has filed a pro se brief raising various challenges to his
sentence.
Garrison’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, which we will enforce,
because the record shows that Garrison knowingly and voluntarily entered into the
plea agreement and the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice will result from
enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.
2003) (en banc).
Although Garrison purports to raise a claim of prosecutorial misconduct which
would fall outside the scope of the waiver, he has not explained how his allegations
that the prosecutor made misrepresentations to the court had any effect on his
sentence, which was the only sentence the court could impose after accepting the
agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). To the extent Garrison raises
ineffective-assistance claims that would fall outside of the scope of the waiver, we
decline to consider them on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d
868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007).
After reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have
found no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and enforce the appeal waiver by dismissing the
appeal.
______________________________
-2-