Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01887/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01887-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gordon P. Grant
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1887

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Gordon P. Grant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 20, 2010

Filed: August 24, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Gordon Grant pleaded guilty to using filesharing programs to publish notices over the internet offering to display, distribute,

and/or reproduce child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)(1)(A) and

(e) (Count 1); attempting to distribute child pornography over the internet, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1) (Count 2); receiving child pornography over the

internet, in violation of section 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1) (Count 3); and possessing one

or more child-pornography films and other matter that had been transported in

interstate commerce, or had been produced using materials transported in interstate

commerce, in violation of section 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) (Count 4). The district

Appellate Case: 10-1887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696483
1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-

court1

 imposed concurrent prison sentences--the statutory maximum for each count--

of 30 years (Count 1), 20 years (Counts 2 and 3), and 10 years (Count 1). On appeal,

Grant’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonably harsh. 

Grant’s written plea agreement contains an appeal waiver pursuant to which he

waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack a finding of guilt on any ground except

ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct; and also waived his

right to appeal his sentence, directly or collaterally, on any ground except (1)

ineffective assistance, (2) prosecutorial misconduct, or (3) an illegal sentence,

meaning a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum. We will enforce the appeal

waiver. The record shows that Grant pleaded guilty voluntarily and with full

knowledge of the appeal waiver, his concurrent sentences do not exceed the applicable

statutory maximums, the Anders brief argument is covered by the appeal waiver, and

no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforceability of appeal

waiver).

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

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal

waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, we deny Grant’s

motion for new appointed counsel, and we dismiss this appeal. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696483