Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01471/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01471-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sammy Inarrito
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1471

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Sammy Inarrito, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2010

Filed: February 4, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

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

Inarrito pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. The

district court1

 sentenced him to 180 months in prison and 4 years of supervised

release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he raises as issues whether

Inarrito understood “the full nature and extent” of the language in the plea agreement,

Appellate Case: 09-1471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631111
-2-

including the appeal waiver; and whether the district court erred in making

determinations at sentencing regarding drug quantity and relevant conduct.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Inarrito knowingly and voluntarily

entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, as he confirmed at the guiltyplea hearing that he had read and signed the plea agreement, that he had fully

discussed the plea agreement with his attorney, that all the statements contained in the

plea agreement were true, and that he understood the appeal waiver. Further, we

conclude that the district court’s determinations as to drug quantity and relevant

conduct fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, and that 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) (stating circumstances in which court will

enforce appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070,

1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

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

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We grant defense

counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the

procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631111