Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01360/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01360-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobbi L. Bolton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1360

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Bobbi L. Bolton, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2004

Filed: September 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bobbi L. Bolton pled guilty to social security and document identification

fraud. At sentencing, the district court denied Bolton’s motion for a downward

departure and sentenced her to two concurrent terms of 37 months, as well as three

years supervised release. Bolton appeals the sentence imposed by the district court.1

Bolton’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). The Anders brief raises four potential issues: (1) whether counsel

Appellate Case: 04-1360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2005 Entry ID: 1952672
2

 We also note that on multiple occasions Bolton admitted committing the

crimes to which she pled guilty. 

3

 The specific waiver provision in Bolton’s plea agreement states:

[I]f the District Court accepts the plea in this case and utilizes the

parties’ recommended guidelines offense level calculation, both the

defendant and the Government hereby mutually agree to waive all rights

to appeal any issues with respect to that guidelines offense level

calculation, as well as all non-jurisdictional issues, including pre-trial

motions, hearings and discovery and any issues which relate to the

negotiation, taking or acceptance of the guilty plea. The parties

specifically reserve the right to appeal any other issues not covered by

-2-

was ineffective, (2) whether Bolton’s guilty plea was valid, (3) whether a possible

defense existed to the charged crimes, and (4) whether the court’s sentence was valid.

We will not review the district court’s discretionary denial of Bolton’s

downward departure motion. See United States v. Rice, 332 F.3d 538, 540 (8th Cir.

2003). We will likewise not consider Bolton’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim

as that claim is more appropriately made through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See

United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). With respect to the

validity of Bolton’s guilty plea, we note that Bolton did not object to the district

court’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy. Additionally, a careful

review of the record does not reveal any error that would invalidate her guilty plea.

Because the guilty plea is valid, it nullifies any defenses that might otherwise have

been raised below.2

 Accordingly, we can turn our attention to Bolton’s final claim

that her sentence is invalid. 

We find that Bolton’s appeal of the validity of her sentence is precluded

because she made a “knowing and voluntary waiver” of the right to appeal her

sentence, as long as the sentence was within the range recommended by the United

States Sentencing Guidelines.3

 United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 04-1360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2005 Entry ID: 1952672
the waiver in this paragraph, including and issues that relate to the

establishment of the criminal history category which is used to produce

the ultimate guidelines range, and an upward or downward departure

from the guidelines range that is established by the Court at sentencing,

and any other aspect of sentencing not determined by the offense level

calculation set forth herein and agreed upon by the parties. . . . [T]he

defendant further agrees to waive all rights to contest the conviction or

sentence, except for grounds of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective

assistance of counsel, in any post conviction proceeding, including one

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

4

 The Guidelines’ recommended sentence was 30 to 37 months in custody. 

5 The Anders brief filed by Bolton’s counsel did not raise any arguments under

United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Even if it had

contained such arguments, they would have been of no consequence because a valid

appeal waiver results in the loss of the right to appellate relief under Booker, unless

that right is expressly reserved. Reeves, 410 F.3d at 1034.

-3-

2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). Although Bolton’s sentence was

at the top of the Guidelines’ recommended range, it did not involve an upward

departure.4

 Thus, Bolton’s sentence was within the scope of the appeal waiver.

United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 2005).5

Upon our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________

Appellate Case: 04-1360 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/16/2005 Entry ID: 1952672