Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01239/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01239-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Rosales-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1239

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Rafael Rosales-Martinez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2007

Filed: December 11, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Rosales-Martinez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry following removal,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1

 sentenced him as a career offender

to 170 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, RosalesMartinez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which questions whether the district court erred in

sentencing Rosales-Martinez as a career offender. 

Appellate Case: 07-1239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Entry ID: 3380940
-2-

The plea agreement, however, contains a waiver of Rosales-Martinez’s right to

appeal his sentence, and we will enforce that appeal waiver here. The record reflects

that Rosales-Martinez understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea

agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver; and no injustice would result. 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 both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and

voluntarily, appeal falls within scope of waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would

result); 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 under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find that there are no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Entry ID: 3380940