Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03596/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03596-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felton Gooseberry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3596

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Felton Gooseberry, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2006

Filed: January 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Felton Gooseberry appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B)(iii). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gooseberry has filed a pro se supplemental brief,

arguing that his sentence should be vacated under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004).

Appellate Case: 04-3596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999476
-2-

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Gooseberry’s written plea

agreement: the district court conducted a proper Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11 colloquy and discussed the appeal waiver with Gooseberry, who affirmed that his

plea was voluntary and that he understood the plea agreement and the waiver; this

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.) (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 issues under United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034-35

(8th Cir.) (right to appeal under Booker is among rights waived by broad appeal

waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate Booker ruling), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

469 (2005).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999476