Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02832/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02832-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Franklin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2832

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Douglas Franklin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 7, 2007

Filed: November 28, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Franklin appeals the 63-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Franklin’s counsel has moved to withdraw and

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that

it would be a miscarriage of justice to enforce the appeal waiver, because, at the time

Franklin signed the plea agreement, neither party contemplated that Franklin would

not receive a 2-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction or that he would receive

Appellate Case: 06-2832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2007 Entry ID: 3376547
-2-

a 2-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement, both of which counsel further maintains

were based upon clearly erroneous findings.

Franklin’s written plea agreement contains a valid appeal waiver which

encompasses the argument that counsel raises on appeal, and we conclude that the

waiver is enforceable and that enforcing it would not cause a miscarriage of justice.

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

(discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see alsoUnited 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 under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues not covered by the waiver, we enforce the

waiver and dismiss this appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition

that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing

and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2007 Entry ID: 3376547