Case ID: f-appx_619/html/0569-01.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. Amjad KATTOM, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-1307.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 29, 2015.
    Filed: Nov. 4, 2015.
    Stephanie Mazzanti, Cameron Charles McCree, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Amjad Kattom, Mason, TN, pro se.
    Lott Rolfe, IV, Rolfe Law Firm, North Little Rock, AR, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Amjad Kattom directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess controlled substances and analogues of controlled substances with intent to-distribute. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief trader Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Kattom has submitted a pro se brief in which he asks for a shorter sentence and to be allowed to serve his sentence in Arkansas, rather than Mississippi. We conclude that Kat-tom’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claims. 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, 889-90 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result). We note that the'court lacked authority to order placement at any particular- facility as the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is solely responsible for that decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (BOP shall designate place of prisoner’s imprisonment and determine eligibility for drug treatment). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.