Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04385/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04385-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omar R. De Lao Oliveros
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4385

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Omar R. De Lao Oliveros, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 2, 2006

Filed: November 27, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Omar R. De Lao Oliveros (Oliveros) challenges the sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after he pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute

500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture and 500 grams or more of a

cocaine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1). His counsel

has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the district court erred at sentencing by denying his request for

a mitigating-role reduction.

Appellate Case: 05-4385 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2006 Entry ID: 2112527
-2-

In his written plea agreement, Oliveros agreed “not to appeal any issues with

respect to this case.” We enforce this appeal waiver, because no miscarriage of justice

would result: the district court properly questioned Oliveros who indicated his plea

was voluntary and knowing, Oliveros understood the plea agreement and the waiver,

and Oliveros’s sentence is consistent with the plea agreement. See United States v.

Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (courts should enforce appeal

waivers and dismiss appeals where the appeal falls within scope of waiver, both the

plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district courts can ensure plea

agreements and appeal waivers are knowing and voluntary is to question defendant

properly about his decision to enter into the plea agreement and to waive his right to

appeal).

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

80 (1988), we find 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: 05-4385 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2006 Entry ID: 2112527