Case ID: f-appx_652/html/0492-01.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. Emmanuel SUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-3620
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 17, 2016
    Filed: June 20, 2016
    
      Sirena Miller Wissler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Emmanuel Suarez, Pro Se.
    Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Emmanuel Suarez appeals after he pled guilty to drug and gun charges pursuant to a plea agreement, and the district court sentenced him to prison terms totaling 120 months. His counsel has moved for leave 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 Suarez’s plea was not knowing and voluntary. We conclude that counsel’s argument presents no meritorious basis for reversing. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (claim that guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to present it to district court in first instance by motion to withdraw guilty plea). Furthermore, 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 non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.