Case ID: f-appx_498/html/0663-01.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. Jerry Earl TROUPE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-2150.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 31, 2013.
    Filed: Feb. 14, 2013.
    Erica L. Mynarich, Mynarich Law L.L.C., Joplin, MO, for appellant.
    Jerry Earl Troupe, Jr., Pollock, LA, pro se.
    Gary K. Milligan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
    Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jerry Troupe directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a child-pornography charge. He entered his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a partial waiver of his appeal rights. Troupe’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Troupe has filed a pro se supplemental brief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

To begin, we conclude that Troupe’s pro se ineffective-assistance claim is not barred by the appeal waiver, but we decline to address it on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

We further conclude that counsel’s argument on appeal is barred by the appeal waiver because (1) the record reflects that Troupe entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily,. (2) counsel’s argument falls squarely within the scope of the waiver, and (3) no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver in this case. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (setting forth criteria for enforcing appeal waiver).

Having 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 dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Troupe about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certio-rari. 
      
      . The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.