Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01414/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Harvey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1414

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Joshua Harvey, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 20, 2005

Filed: November 7, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Harvey appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The government has moved to dismiss the

appeal based on an appeal waiver, and Harvey argues that his sentence is illegal and

appealable because the Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional under United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Appellate Case: 04-1414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2005 Entry ID: 1972038
-2-

We reject this argument, see United States v. Burns, 409 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir.

2005) (per curiam) (“illegal sentence” exception to rule that appeal waivers are

generally enforceable includes only sentences outside statutory range; appeal waivers

still enforceable against Booker claims), and enforce the appeal waiver: the district

court conducted a proper Federal Rule of Criminal Peocedure 11 colloquy; Harvey

indicated that his plea was voluntary and knowing, and the district court discussed the

appeal waiver with him at the plea hearing; this appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver; and no injustice would result, as his sentence is consistent with the plea

agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir.) (en banc)

(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of

waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily,

and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure

plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly question

defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). The waiver also covered any Booker issues. See United

States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 2005) (right to appeal under Booker

is among rights waived by broad appeal waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate

Booker ruling), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Sept. 7, 2005) (No. 05-6322). 

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

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2005 Entry ID: 1972038