Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0177-01.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. Tara D. CHILDRESS Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-1307
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 4, 2017
    Filed: August 11, 2017
    Joseph M. Marquez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Tara D. Childress, Pro Se
    Jacquelyn E. Rokusek, Rokusek & Stein Law, Shawnee, KS, Defendant-Appellant
    Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges
   PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Tara Chil-dress challenges the sentence the district court imposed after she pleaded guilty to drug and robbery charges, pursuant to a written plea agreement which included an appeal waiver. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the issue that the sentence was unreasonable. Childress has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that counsel was ineffective and disputing the Guidelines calculations; and a motion for appointment of new counsel.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Childress entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the arguments fall within the scope of the waiver; 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, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, as it would be better litigated in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). 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 to withdraw, deny the motion for new counsel, and dismiss this appeal. 
      
      . The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.