Case ID: f-appx_676/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Deandre SORRELLS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-2516
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 10, 2017
    Filed: February 24, 2017
    Christine M. Blegen, Blegen Law Firm, LLC, Lee’s Summit, MO, for appellant.
    Bruce A. Rhoades, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
    Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Walter Sorrells appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering charges, pursuant to a binding Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, which was below the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver and raising issues related to Sorrells’s conviction and sentence. Sorrells has not filed a supplemental brief.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is 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, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal. 
      
      . The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.