Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03798/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03798-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio R. Azpeitia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3798

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Antonio R. Azpeitia, also known as *

Markei Pena, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Antonio Ramirez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 29, 2010

Filed: July 9, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal,

Antonio Azpeitia pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) & (b)(1), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) & 924(a)(2). The district court1

 sentenced Azpeitia to 140

months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved

Appellate Case: 09-3798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2010 Entry ID: 3682024
-2-

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The government has moved to dismiss the appeal.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Azpeitia’s appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of

justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of

waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily,

and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure

plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to question defendant

properly about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); see also

United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we grant the government’s

motion to dismiss this appeal. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3798 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2010 Entry ID: 3682024