Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02821/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Scott Donald Wiele
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2821

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Scott Donald Wiele, * District of Minnesota.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: October 5, 2007

Filed: October 31, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Scott Donald Wiele appeals the 108-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Count

1); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count 2); and money laundering, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) (Count 3). In a brief filed under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), his counsel argues that Wiele’s sentence is

unreasonable because the court failed to consider the mitigating factors presented at

sentencing, and improperly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Appellate Case: 06-2821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2007 Entry ID: 3367562
-2-

We enforce the appeal waiver included in Wiele’s plea agreement: the plea

colloquy reflects that Wiele understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea

agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and

no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.

2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States

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

appeal waiver in Anders case). 

After reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court. We grant counsel’s

withdrawal motion, and we deny Wiele’s pending motion to stay the appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2007 Entry ID: 3367562