United States v. Brian Briggs

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-1154
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Brian Warren Briggs
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Fargo
____________
Submitted: July 19, 2013
Filed: July 24, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Brian Briggs pleaded guilty to drug-conspiracy and money-laundering
charges, the district court1 sentenced him below the Guidelines range and statutory
1
The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota.
minimum to 180 months in prison. Seeking leave to withdraw, his counsel has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court’s
sentence is unreasonable because the court did not adequately address the substantial-
assistance criteria in U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. In a pro se supplemental brief, Briggs raises
concerns about the quality of the legal representation he received, and suggests that
a lower sentence was warranted based on his assistance to the government.
Briggs pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver of
his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We will enforce the appeal waiver.
Briggs’s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, which by its terms applies in a
direct criminal appeal unless the sentence imposed was above the court-determined
Guidelines range. Further, the record reflects that Briggs entered into both the waiver
and the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and we find that no miscarriage
of justice would result from enforcing the waiver in this case. See United States v.
Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2011) (court should enforce appeal waiver if
both waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, appeal
is within scope of waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result), cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 2407 (2012); see also United Stated v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir.
2009) (de novo review of whether defendant waived right to appeal sentence).
Although the pro se brief suggests that Briggs is unsatisfied with his counsel’s
assistance, we will not consider ineffective-assistance claims in this direct criminal
appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007).
Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-