Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01531/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01531-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Pamela Wood
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1531

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Pamela Wood,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: December 8, 2014

 Filed: March 30, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Pamela Wood pleaded guilty to one count of theft of United States property, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. The district court1

 sentenced Wood to a probation for

1

The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Appellate Case: 14-1531 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Entry ID: 4259509 
five years and ordered her to make restitution. Wood appeals, arguing that the district

court imposed an unreasonable sentence. She also challenges a condition of probation

requiring her to participate in a location monitoring program for six months. Because

we conclude that Wood waived her right to appeal on these grounds, we enforce the

waiver and affirm the judgment.

Wood pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that she and her

attorney signed. The agreement includes a section entitled “WAIVER OF APPEAL

AND POST-CONVICTION RIGHTS,” which includes the following provision:

In the event the Court accepts the plea, accepts the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Total Offense Level agreed to herein, and, after determining

a Sentencing Guidelines range, sentences the defendant within or below

that range, then, as part of this agreement, the defendant hereby waives

all rights to appeal all sentencing issues other than Criminal History.

Plea Agreement, R. Doc. 35, at 6 (emphasis added).

The parties agreed to recommend a base offense level of six, a two-level

increase based on amount of loss, and a two-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, for a total offense level of six. The agreement left the determination

of Wood’s criminal history category to the court. The sentence imposed by the

court—a five-year term of probation—was within the advisory guideline range

applicable to a base offense level of six and Wood’s criminal history category as

found by the court.

As a general rule, a defendant may waive her rights to appeal as part of a plea

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

To enforce the waiver, we must “confirm that the appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver and that both the waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1531 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Entry ID: 4259509 
voluntarily.” Id. at 889-90. Even when these requirements are met, we will not

enforce a waiver when to do so would result in a “miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 890.

Wood’s appeal falls within the scope of her waiver. The district court accepted

the total offense level agreed to by the parties, and the sentence was within the

advisory guideline range. Wood seeks to appeal “sentencing issues other than

Criminal History”—i.e., the reasonableness of the five-year term of probation and the

probationary condition requiring her to participate in location monitoring. Wood does

not dispute that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, see United States v.

Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1998), and she does not contend that

enforcement of the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-1531 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Entry ID: 4259509