Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01976/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01976-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dajuan Anthony Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1976

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Dajuan Anthony Harris, also known *

as Kendricke Harris, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dejuan Harris, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 23, 2010

Filed: January 3, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Dajuan

Harris pled guilty to using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a drugtrafficking conspiracy, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), and being a felon in

possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

sentenced Harris to concurrent prison terms of 48 and 110 months and concurrent

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 10-1976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2011 Entry ID: 3740265
supervised release terms of 1 and 3 years. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw and arguing that the

court miscalculated the drug quantity and imposed an unreasonable sentence. Harris

has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that counsel was ineffective.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because the record shows that

Harris entered into both the plea agreement and the waiver knowingly and voluntarily; 

further, this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, and enforcing the appeal

waiver would not result in 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); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per

curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). We decline to consider the

ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d

1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion). 

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal waiver. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and allow counsel to withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 10-1976 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2011 Entry ID: 3740265