Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03767/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03767-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Juan Valadez
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3767

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota.

Juan Valadez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2007

Filed: January 12, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Valadez appeals the 120-month prison sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to

distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Valdadez’s guilty

plea and corresponding appeal waiver were knowing and voluntary and asserting

several other arguments at Valadez’s request.

Appellate Case: 05-3767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2007 Entry ID: 3267161
-2-

We conclude that this appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver

Valadez agreed to as part of his written plea agreement. Further, though Valadez

repeatedly expressed his displeasure at the inclusion of the appeal waiver in the plea

agreement, he also repeatedly expressed his understanding of the implications of the

waiver and his understanding that the plea agreement was dependent on inclusion of

the waiver. Thus, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, and we enforce it. 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 properly question

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3767 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2007 Entry ID: 3267161